[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: why "in_sighandler"?
From: |
YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu |
Subject: |
Re: why "in_sighandler"? |
Date: |
Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:44:39 +0900 |
User-agent: |
Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.6 (Marutamachi) APEL/10.6 Emacs/22.0.50 (sparc-sun-solaris2.8) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) |
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:18:38 +0200, Jan Djärv <address@hidden> said:
> I don't like it, because it assumes things are "probably OK" to run
> in the signal handler (i.e. pthread_mutex_lock/unlock). I still
> think it might hang if a Gnome thread is in mutex_lock and a signal
> arrives and then the signal handler also enters mutex_lock.
Does it mean the quote from IEEE Std 1003.1 did not convince you?
> It is one assumtion against another, neither suggestion is without
> flaws (we need SYNC_INPUT for that).
No assumption is needed to say that the current code leads to a
problem under a certain scenario.
Suppose that we abandon emacs_blocked_malloc and so on when
HAVE_GTK_AND_PTHREAD is defined. I think it is as safe as other
non-GNU-malloc systems where emacs_blocked_malloc and so on are not
used, provided that malloc-related functions are thread-safe. What do
you think about that?
YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu
address@hidden
- why "in_sighandler"?, Stefan Monnier, 2006/08/20
- Re: why "in_sighandler"?, Jan D., 2006/08/20
- Re: why "in_sighandler"?, Stefan Monnier, 2006/08/20
- Re: why "in_sighandler"?, YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu, 2006/08/20
- Re: why "in_sighandler"?, Jan Djärv, 2006/08/21
- Re: why "in_sighandler"?,
YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu <=
- Re: why "in_sighandler"?, Jan Djärv, 2006/08/21
- Re: why "in_sighandler"?, YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu, 2006/08/21
- Re: why "in_sighandler"?, Jan Djärv, 2006/08/21
- Re: why "in_sighandler"?, YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu, 2006/08/21
- Re: why "in_sighandler"?, Jan Djärv, 2006/08/21
- Re: why "in_sighandler"?, YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu, 2006/08/21
- Re: why "in_sighandler"?, Jan Djärv, 2006/08/22
- Re: why "in_sighandler"?, YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu, 2006/08/22
- Re: why "in_sighandler"?, Jan Djärv, 2006/08/22
- Re: why "in_sighandler"?, YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu, 2006/08/22