At Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:14:20 +0200, marco_g wrote: > > Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > It's also questionable if you really want another thread to wait on a > > condition all the time. OTOH, there probably is no suitable other > > thread. So, if we need another thread, then that's ok. But block > > signals for all other threads, and have that thread also handle the > > signals you want to catch. That's best because then memory is already > > synchronized. Having that thread sleep most of the time and check for the > > I have tried blocking signals for other threads but I have little luck > so far. It seems that there is no way to block signals for all new > threads that will be created, or are they blocked when created. From > what I can tell, they are not.
I was assuming use of pthread when I wrote that. We already know that signal handling in the Hurd has issues, but I don't know specifically if what I suggested is currently possible or not. > Can someone please tell me what I did wrong or what would be a better > way to do this? Sorry, I was working from the specs and docs, and currently can't check the implementation details. Maybe Roland remembers something. Thanks, Marcus _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
