Re: sigaction & pthread_sigmask

[William Ahern <william@25thandClement.com>]

On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 01:48:37PM +1000, Ross Johnson wrote:
> I'm not qualified to comment in detail.
> 
> One thing that I can say that may be important for you deciding how much 
> time you put into this is that a lot of effort has gone into keeping the 
> library portable and consistent (for performance) across Windows 
> versions from W95 onward (plus WinCE - or whatever it's called now), and 
> able to be built using at least the MSVC and GNU compilers going back a 
> few years (and others if possible) primarily as a C language library, 
> i.e. without exception handling. Although mildly discouraged, it can be 
> built easily with C++ EH, or SEH (MSVC only).

Update: Refactoring my code to better fit the existing codebase was more of
a hassle than I initially thought. Portability is less of an issue than, for
instance, refactoring my existing atomic operations library (which is based
on the proposed C++ standard, stdatomic.h).

I'll ping the list again when I restart work on this sub-project. My window
of time ran out, and I had to move onto other things.