James Mansion wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > You interested in trying to code up a patch to verify that? ;)
> >
> >
> Practical reality says that I won't get to this before the next
> version of Windows is released.
> I don't want to promise something I can't deliver.
:-)
If you want to throw me some code-snippet-ideas off-list that's not
ready for an actual patch, be my guest - and maybe I can put something
together.
> >> If there were any desire to provide a MT-aware postmaster, the
> >> same technique of masking
> >> signals except on a signal thread might apply.
> >>
> >
> > Define MT-aware :-) It's certainly MT-aware in the fact that it's
> > already MT... But there is no interest in making the actual backends
> > launch as threads in the postmaster - at least not currently.
> >
> I seem to remember being slapped about for daring to suggest using a
> threaded embedded
> language even if only one thread calls into the core, on the ground
> that the signals might not
> go to the right thread. So I'm assuming that a thread-aware build
> would generally mask async
> signals and wait for them in a specific thread in sigwait, which
> would effectively match the
> Win32 model (for a threaded build).
That is something different than a threaded build, though ;-) You're
probably more likely to get that to happen - though maybe not by much...
//Magnus
