STINNER Victor <victor.stin...@haypocalc.com> added the comment: > I mistakenly removed your pending_signals-2 patch > I'm really sorry about this, could you re-post it?
No problem, anyway I worked on a new version in the train. > So, if anything, you shouldn't check for a pending signal [in sigwait] Right, fixed in the new patch. -- pending_signals-3.patch: - don't check for pending signals in sigwait() - pthread_kill() doc: it is not a good idea to say that pthread_kill() with signum=0 can be used to check if a thread identifier is valid => such test does crash (SIGSEGV) on my Linux box. I changed the doc to say that it can be used to check if a thread is still running (which is different). - add a dedicated test for sigpending() - doc: explain how to get a thread identifier for pthread_kill() - don't compile pthread_kill() without threads: you cannot get a valid thread identifier without the _thread module I think that the patch is ready to be commited. Anyone for a last review? (antoine, neologix?) ---------- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file21921/pending_signals-3.patch _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue8407> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
