Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 19:34:51 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: sigframe query Message-ID: <20020803233451.GD8760@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com References: <030a01c23b3e$3edf2de0$6132bc3e AT BABEL> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <030a01c23b3e$3edf2de0$6132bc3e@BABEL> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 11:36:44PM +0100, Conrad Scott wrote: >The "how-signals-work.txt" file contains the following paragraph: > >> If sigsave seems to be available, then the frame >> information for the main thread is inspected. >> This information is set by any cygwin function >> that is known to block (such as _read()), >> usually by calling 'sigframe thisframe (mainthread)' >> in the cygwin function. This call sets up information >> about the current stack frame of an executing cygwin >> process. Any function which uses 'sigframe thisframe' >> should be signal aware. It should detect when a >> signal has arrived and return immediately. > >But in wandering back and forth in the code I've noticed several >functions that have a sigframe but are neither slow nor >signal-aware; for an extreme case, see the isatty function in >"syscalls.cc". > >Is there any good reason to add sigframe to non-blocking >functions? or is it something that could be "optimized" away? or >should "how-signals-work.txt" be updated? I've updated how-signals-work.txt (q.v.). cgf