[...]

>What you're saying is that you want to completely remove the 
>traditional BSD signal interface.  Compatibility with the "old way" is 
>why there is an SA_SIGINFO flag, in the sigaction struct, right?

>Well, if you didn't like it, I wish you would have voiced your 
>objection to the trampoline naming convention when I proposed it (along 
>with userland trampolines) ... quite some time ago.  The scheme I 
>intended has been implemented and, more importantly, *documented* for 
>over a year now.  See signal(9).

Not taking sides one way or the other, but: surely someone brought up
the point that userland trampolines doesn't work[*] for binary emulations?
(consider supporting the "old way", for old nebbsd binaries, as an emul...)

Plus of course, for passing the SA_SIGINFO to nonnative binary emuls
which may expect different formats.

[*] "doesn't work" in that several emuls dont use userspaec
trampolines natively, so one has to fudge up a userspace trampoline
hander, and *figure out where to put it without breaking anythinge
else*: at which point one might as well put that emul's trampoline in
kernel-space and be done with it.