Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2015-08-30 14:59:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> HAVE_SIG_ATOMIC_T is a debatable case, in that the only thing we're
>> doing with it is c.h's
>>
>> /* sig_atomic_t is required by ANSI C, but may be missing on old platforms */
>> #ifndef HAVE_SIG_ATOMIC_T
>> typedef int sig_atomic_t;
>> #endif
>>
>> which should be safe enough (if int isn't atomically stored/fetched we
>> already have big problems elsewhere). Still, the configure test for it
>> appears to be a complete waste of cycles.
> What are you proposing to do instead? Replace sig_atomic_t by int
> everywhere? Or unconditionally do the typedef? Because the latter won't
> work well if it's already typedef'ed...
No no no, I'm proposing to remove the above-quoted lines and the configure
test. sig_atomic_t is required by C89; there is no reason anymore to
cope with it not being provided by <signal.h>.
regards, tom lane
