Re: [Chicken-users] Fwd: Re: process-wait

[Jörg F . Wittenberger]

On Sep 2 2011, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:

> 3. It might be all much easier to rearrange cicken different way to
>   allow "real" code in signal handlers.  (mutex-unlock! is already
>   proven to be "real code" in that case, i.e., *will* hang eventually.)

There is one better way (phenomenologically, that is) to hook into the
existing system.  Attached as a diff to the same git checkout as before.

This one does not try to handle POSIX signals in the original signal
handler.  Instead the handlers are activated from ##sys#schedule.

Along the way this version still defines ##sys#signals-peek , but at
least it does not use it.  The API is not better as it does it's best
to assure each signal is seen just once.

best regards

/Jerry
........

asyncsignals.diff
Description: asyncsignals.diff