From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 43777 invoked by alias); 30 Aug 2015 02:42:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 41530 invoked by uid 89); 30 Aug 2015 02:37:16 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mtaout22.012.net.il Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il (HELO mtaout22.012.net.il) (80.179.55.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sun, 30 Aug 2015 02:37:15 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NTV00M00J50X600@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sun, 30 Aug 2015 05:37:12 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.94.185.246]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NTV00MDDJA0TV20@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Sun, 30 Aug 2015 05:37:12 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2015 02:42:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [RFC] Block all async signals used by gdb when initializing Guile In-reply-to: <201508292104.t7TL42OS020892@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> To: Mark Kettenis Cc: xdje42@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, guile-devel@gnu.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83si711oyo.fsf@gnu.org> References: <831tel3o68.fsf@gnu.org> <83wpwd26lt.fsf@gnu.org> <201508292104.t7TL42OS020892@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-08/txt/msg00853.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 23:04:02 +0200 (CEST) > From: Mark Kettenis > CC: eliz@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, guile-devel@gnu.org > > I suppose blocking these in the threads that guile starts is necessary > because that is the only way to guarantee that those signals will be > delivered to the main gdb thread on POSIX systems. > > On Windows you probably need to do something completely different. I might be missing something, because I don't see why.