From: jra@axon.cygnus.com (Jeremy Allison) Subject: Re: ITIMER Implimentation??? 3 Dec 1996 20:27:01 -0800 Sender: daemon@cygnus.com Approved: cygnus.gnu-win32@cygnus.com Distribution: cygnus Message-ID: <199612040141.RAA02026.cygnus.gnu-win32@cygnus.com> Original-To: Alessandro Forin Original-cc: "'chris@calligrafix.co.uk'" , "'Jeremy Allison'" , "'gnu-win32@cygnus.com'" In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 03 Dec 1996 16:54:25 PST." Original-Sender: owner-gnu-win32@cygnus.com Hi Alessandro, I know that NT takes signals on a separate thread, the problem is that UNIX code expects that synchronous I/O will be interrupted when a signal occurs. Don't tell me it's bad, that's just the way UNIX code is written, and that's the way people using Cygwin32 will want it to work :-). Cygwin32 is not currently MT-safe (that's another bunch of code :-). This is not possible on NT currently without me re-writing all blocking I/O in Cygwin32 to use asynchronous I/O under the covers and waiting on the handle and a separate event which the signal thread sets as 'signalled'. This is a lot of work, hence my statement. Cheers, Jeremy. jra@cygnus.com PS. Please don't say things like 'Signals are bad for you.' in that definitive 'take your medicine' sort of way. I know they can be a pain - I occasionally use goto's as well - you just have to know *when* to use them. What I object to is not being given the choice. It's only a small step from 'Signals are bad for you.' to 'Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.' (which given your email address... :-) :-). - For help on using this list, send a message to "gnu-win32-request@cygnus.com" with one line of text: "help".