Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 19:26:35 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: dyson@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: karpen@ocean.campus.luth.se, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: What is wrong with this snipet? Message-ID: <199709171926.MAA08260@usr02.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199709160858.DAA00240@dyson.iquest.net> from "John S. Dyson" at Sep 16, 97 03:58:33 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> The only problem that I can see, is the possibility of a signal > being issued while the child is temporarily using (and avoiding actual > use of) the parent's stack. That problem is evil, but there are a couple > of workarounds for it (specifically, there is another rfork bit that says > that it is a thread creation.) We can hold signals until the child thread > is ready to accept them. I suspect that the thread creation bit will be > used to hold signal delivery in the child, and the child will have to > explicitly enable delivery. This will generally be transparent > to the user (unless the user will be writing their own thread support code.) call_on_alternate_stack( thread_main, void *thread_main_args, thread_stack); Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709171926.MAA08260>