delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin/2009/01/11/19:42:18

X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:41:25 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Signal handling in Win32 GUI programs
Message-ID: <20090112004125.GE21040@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <496A1DBC DOT 7070004 AT gmail DOT com> <20090111163729 DOT GB9992 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <496A24DE DOT 1080101 AT gmail DOT com> <20090111180740 DOT GC10049 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <496A5C5D DOT 9030703 AT gmail DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <496A5C5D.9030703@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Note-from-DJ: This may be spam

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 08:53:49PM +0000, Andy Koppe wrote:
>>>I've added a thread doing 'for (;;) pause();', but unfortunately that
>>>doesn't seem to do the trick.  Do I need to go into Cygwin internals
>>>and wait directly on the Win32 event(s) used for signals?
>>sigwait() will probably work better than pause.
>
>That indeed works, thank you very much! I didn't know that function,
>very handy.  With that and threads, signal handlers with all their
>vagaries aren't really needed anymore, are they?

I have it on my todo list to see why pause doesn't work.  I'd like to do
some signal revamping someday but I don't want to destabilize 1.7.0 to
do that.

>And speaking of threads, does it make a difference whether one uses
>Pthreads or Win32 threads?  I mean apart from portability and the small
>overhead Pthreads presumably incur.

You really have to use pthreads.  Using non-posix methods is always asking
for trouble in Cygwin.

>MinTTY's got three such little helper threads hanging about now, doing
>waitpid() on the child process, read() on the child pty, and the
>abovementioned sigwait().  Would there be any point in trying to
>consolidate them into a single sigwait() process, using SIGCHLD and
>asynchronous reads?

Hmm.  I guess you could just do a sigwait on SIGCHLD and consolidate the
signal handling with that.  I don't think it makes sense to set up async
I/O just to do reads on the pty.  That would eliminate one thread at
least.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019