Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com From: Chris Faylor Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 22:19:21 -0500 To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Subject: Contemplating signal changes, but... Message-ID: <19991122221921.A8075@cygnus.com> Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i I'm contemplating changing the signal handler in some fundamental ways. I figure it's time since I've essentially rewritten it three times since 1997. I've been stabilizing things a lot in the snapshots but I have never liked the performance hits that I"ve been introducing. To implement my plan, I need to have some quickly available per-thread memory. I won't go into details, but basically what I'm looking for is to use the base of the stack for fast per-thread storage. I can guarantee that the stack has space available for me down there when I control thread creation but I can't guarantee this when I haven't created the thread or when the cygwin DLL is being dynamically loaded. I can probably put a front-end on CreateThread to work around the problem with people creating threads but I was thinking of just turning off signals entirely when the Cygwin DLL is dynamically loaded. I could also just revert to the old method of delivering signals but that would be a little more work. I wanted to see how people (i.e., Mumit) felt about the idea of signals being inoperative in a dynamically loaded cygwin. I don't think that this is a big deal but I don't know for sure. Opinions? cgf