On Jul 18 14:37, Jon Turney wrote:
> On 17/07/2023 15:02, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >
> > > We can't neatly tuck the pthread_cleanup_push/pop inside the object, as
> > > they are implemented as macros which must appear in the same lexical
> > > scope.
> >
> > You could do it if you call the under
On 17/07/2023 15:02, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
We can't neatly tuck the pthread_cleanup_push/pop inside the object, as
they are implemented as macros which must appear in the same lexical
scope.
You could do it if you call the underlying functions instead.
pthread_cleanup_push is just a conveni
Hi Jon,
On Jul 17 12:58, Jon Turney wrote:
> On 13/07/2023 12:38, Jon Turney wrote:
> >
> > cancel11: some funkiness I can't work out, causing the save/restoring
> > signal handlers around system() to not
> > work correctly
>
> So, the test here: is the SIGINT handle restored correctly if the t
On 13/07/2023 12:38, Jon Turney wrote:
cancel11: some funkiness I can't work out, causing the save/restoring signal
handlers around system() to not
work correctly
So, the test here: is the SIGINT handle restored correctly if the thread
executing system() is cancelled. This test fails, becaus
On Jul 13 12:38, Jon Turney wrote:
> This gets us from :
>
> FAIL: cygload
> FAIL: devdsp.c
> FAIL: ltp/access05.c
> FAIL: ltp/fcntl07.c
> FAIL: ltp/symlink01.c
> FAIL: ltp/symlink03.c
> FAIL: ltp/umask03.c
> FAIL: pthread/cancel11.c
> FAIL: pthread/cancel3.c
> FAIL: pthread/cancel5.c
> FAIL: pthr
