Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:94237
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain mudsite.com designates 209.85.214.53 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAEYWF=7mEsM8wXXpM=d7vLnJRE9a_j7Jns=2P8zr4fOU1WS2eg@mail.gmail.com>
 <BY2PR0201MB17843929BA08BE0DE6E0AF88BF2D0@BY2PR0201MB1784.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <BY2PR0201MB1784DDC492D3F62FDDC11AC0BF2D0@BY2PR0201MB1784.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BY2PR0201MB1784DDC492D3F62FDDC11AC0BF2D0@BY2PR0201MB1784.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 19:49:43 +0000
Message-ID: <CADVQu1R7sxfbVhY7F37UhphoRM5BzWHd03uZftk4LjDHtyw_aw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>, 
	"bishop@php.net" <bishop@php.net>, Joe Watkins <pthreads@pthreads.org>, "davey@php.net" <davey@php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114452ba990f6e0535f75b9b
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Additional context in pcntl_signal handler (was
 Re: [PHP-DEV] pcntl_signal & sa_siginfo)
From: dave@mudsite.com (David Walker)

--001a114452ba990f6e0535f75b9b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:26 PM Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com> wrote:

> BTW: I'm not sure what pcntl_sigaction() could return as the "oldact"
> argument..., so may be the original proposal is good enough.
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 23, 2016 9:02:55 PM
> *To:* PHP internals; bishop@php.net; Joe Watkins; davey@php.net
> *Cc:* David Walker
> *Subject:* Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Additional context in pcntl_signal handler
> (was Re: [PHP-DEV] pcntl_signal & sa_siginfo)
>
> Hi,
>
>
> To keep maximum compatibility and eliminate unnecessary additional
> overhead, I would keep pcntl_signal() unchanged, but add pcntl_sigaction()
> with the ability to specify the need for the second argument (In the same
> way as POSIX does).
>
>
> Joe, Davey, when we stop targeting new RFCs for 7.1?
>


Dmitry,

I was thinking about making a separate pcntl_* method to handle the
differences, but decided against doing it as i assumed that the overhead
involved in a siginfo_t allocation would be marginal.  Having a separate
call, if everyone would prefer, wouldn't be hard to implement.  Now, this
being my first attempt at contributing to internals, I'm not well versed on
a best-practices on benchmarking to provide metrics to my assumption.
(advice very welcomed)

On your second point, it's interesting you discuss the *oact.  As it is
today, calls to pcntl_signal() define the C level signal_handler
as pcntl_signal_handler.  So the *oact is always going to be the same
handler, since userland can't control the C level handler.  However, a
similar idea was brought up in 72409 <https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=72409> to
have the userland callable returned.  I took a stab at that bug with this
pullreq <https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/1952> so that the callable a
user sets to a signal would be returned.  I wasn't sure if it was PR-able,
since it changes a return value of a method, and would have some
BC-problems.

--
Dave

--001a114452ba990f6e0535f75b9b--