On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 08:35:41PM +0200, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote: > On Sep 29 2011, Alan Post wrote: > >If a signal is called when C_interrupts_enabled is false, the signal > >handler turns into a no-op. > > > >global_signal_handler calls C_raise_interrupt, but C_raise_interrupt > >does nothing if C_interrupts_enabled is false, the entire routine is > >contained in that if statement. > > > >My reading of that is that a signal being delivered when > >C_interrupts_enabled is false wil cause that signal to be discarded. > > > >Yes? > > Yes. That's what I've been talking about in the next paragraph. > > With the changes I made (did I post them, did not I?) this problem is gone. > > Hence my question how to clean up the API. Default to possibly useless > re-calling the handler (while it assumes possibly having missed a signal > and hence re-check everything)? Provide a modified API which covers > both cases? ... >
It may have been posted before I was really attending to this conversation. I can't find it in my archive. Would you mind sending it to me again? -Alan -- .i ma'a lo bradi cu penmi gi'e du _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
