From: <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id: <200301052343.h05NhdA28743@speedy.ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: your mail
In-Reply-To: <1041802018016510@lycos-europe.com> "from Ben Decker at Jan 5, 2003
 10:26:58 pm"
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 00:43:39 +0100 (CET)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL78 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-SpamScore: s
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

Please, put a sensible subject on your mails.

According to Ben Decker:
> "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> wrote in message news:1659-
> Sat04Jan2003131615+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il...
> > > From: "deckerben" <bdeck AT lycos DOT co DOT uk>
> > > I asked the threads group about it and someone recommended pth. The 
> version
> > > that seems to hold the best potential for a quick working port IMO is 1.1.6.
> > > But (at least this version) needs a second stack (probably for keeping track
> > > of mutex, i don't know...). DJGPP has no sigstack or sigaltstack.
> > > 
> > > Is this something doable, or should I just stop now and not waste my time.
> > 
> > It's doable, but requires changes to the library.  If you are
> > interested in working on this, please write to
> > djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com.
> 
> I would like to give it a shot, that is if no one is in too big of a hurry.

If you've been on this list a while, you'll note that we are used to
things taking long. As most (all?) this is done in our free time,
things take the time they take.

> I downloaded the 2.0.4 sources (for the first time) and had a look.
> We'll see. 
> 
> Where should I send my work?

Here. We prefer patches made with "diff -pruN" or "diff -prN", if I'm
not mistaken.


Right,

						MartinS