This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: The new Arthur "two queues" Jackson* implentation of signals
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>
- To: cygwin-developers at cygwin dot com
- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 16:17:54 -0400
- Subject: Re: The new Arthur "two queues" Jackson* implentation of signals
- References: <20030822160501.GA29728@redhat.com> <1061582900.1057.2.camel@localhost>
- Reply-to: cygwin-developers at cygwin dot com
On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:08:20AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
>On Sat, 2003-08-23 at 02:05, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>However, I do have this vague feeling that this implementation might be
>>useful for signals/threads so I'll keep it, at least for now.
>I suspect we'll need one queue for the process, and then one queue per
>thread. Signals masked out of some threads but not the process may be
>delivered to the process queue, and from there to the first thread that
>hasn't masked that signal out.
Yes, this is what I was thinking. This gets into problems, though,
since if you link threads this way, then the number of threads becomes
limited to what you can wait for with WaitForMultipleObjects. That's a
really low limit.
Maybe it's time to implement a generic "WaitForMultipleObjectsAndThenSome".