Angus Leeming wrote:
> I do believe that we've got there. Attached is the final patch with
> a description of the design embedded in forkedcontr.C.
>
> I'll commit this tomorrow to give everybody a fair chance to
> complain loudly.
>
> Many thanks to John Levon for holding my hand through all th
Kuba Ober wrote:
>> > I have a slightly guilty feeling that this patch will need to be
>> > re-implemented in a native Win32 port (SIGCHLD is not supported
>> > on Windows.) Any ideas about how it would look?
>
> I am repeating myself, for which I shall accept reasonable
> punishment (tm), yet is
> > I have a slightly guilty feeling that this patch will need to be
> > re-implemented in a native Win32 port (SIGCHLD is not supported on
> > Windows.) Any ideas about how it would look?
I am repeating myself, for which I shall accept reasonable punishment (tm),
yet is there anything wrong with
John Levon wrote:
> I couldn't know less about Windows.
Less than what? Less than me? Naa. That'd be negative amounts of
know.
--
Angus
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 11:48:51AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> No, of course not. Let's assume that I was confused and move on. Are
> you happy for me to commit the patch? If so, I'll do so this evening.
Why not?
> I have a slightly guilty feeling that this patch will need to be
> re-impleme
John Levon wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 11:21:44AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
>
>> I thought that I read that the handler could be implemented as a
>> separate thread?
>
> You'd be one up on me if POSIX allows this. Do you have a reference?
No, of course not. Let's assume that I was confus
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 11:21:44AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> I thought that I read that the handler could be implemented as a
> separate thread?
You'd be one up on me if POSIX allows this. Do you have a reference?
cheers
john
John Levon wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 10:55:11AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
>
>> 1 if (current_child == -1)
>> 2 return;
>>
>> // Block the SIGCHLD signal.
>> 3 sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, &newMask, &oldMask);
>>
>> // Wait for an existing signal to finis
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 10:55:11AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> 1 if (current_child == -1)
> 2 return;
>
> // Block the SIGCHLD signal.
> 3 sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, &newMask, &oldMask);
>
> // Wait for an existing signal to finish being processed.
> 4 w
Angus Leeming wrote:
> I do believe that we've got there. Attached is the final patch with
> a description of the design embedded in forkedcontr.C.
>
> I'll commit this tomorrow to give everybody a fair chance to
> complain loudly.
>
> Many thanks to John Levon for holding my hand through all th
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 10:31:02AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > By all means burn my extremities, but I believe that tinyurl URLs
> > are cached, and expire after a certain time.
>
> At the very top of http://tinyurl.com :
>
> Welcome to TinyURL!?
>
> Are you sick of posting URLs in emails o
John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 10:40:27PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
>
>> I do believe that we've got there. Attached is the final patch with
>> a description of the design embedded in forkedcontr.C.
>
> By all means burn my extremities, but I believe that tinyurl URLs
> are cached
I do believe that we've got there. Attached is the final patch with a
description of the design embedded in forkedcontr.C.
I'll commit this tomorrow to give everybody a fair chance to complain
loudly.
Many thanks to John Levon for holding my hand through all this.
--
AngusIndex: src/ChangeLog
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 10:40:27PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> I do believe that we've got there. Attached is the final patch with a
> description of the design embedded in forkedcontr.C.
By all means burn my extremities, but I believe that tinyurl URLs are
cached, and expire after a certain t
14 matches
Mail list logo
