From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11889 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2005 06:59:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 11857 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2005 06:59:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 29 Apr 2005 06:59:24 -0000 Received: from zaretski (IGLD-80-230-65-115.inter.net.il [80.230.65.115]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.6-GR) with ESMTP id BCE59846 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:58:59 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 06:59:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: bug-readline@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Message-ID: <01c54c88$Blat.v2.4$d551d3a0@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 In-reply-to: <20050428211735.GA17310@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:17:35 -0400) Subject: Re: PATCH: Readline on MinGW Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <4270886B.1020806@codesourcery.com> <01c54c2d$Blat.v2.4$f3029840@zahav.net.il> <20050428201215.GA14846@nevyn.them.org> <01c54c33$Blat.v2.4$bff25520@zahav.net.il> <20050428211735.GA17310@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00415.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:17:35 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > Cc: bug-readline@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > why did they use "Otherwise"? To me, this says that `raise' is not > > always the equivalent of `kill''. > > Because in an environment which supports multiple threads, it behaves > as pthread_kill (pthread_self(), sig) as described above. I'm sorry for misinterpreting the text. But I think the bottom line still holds: `raise' and `kill' are subtly different in some situations. > > In any case, it is traditional on Posix platforms to use `kill', not > > `raise'. I think the latter was introduced by ANSI/ISO C; if Readline > > does not mandate an ISO C compiler like GDB does, it would make more > > sense to use `raise' only if `kill' is unavailable. > > This isn't right. POSIX mandates the existence of raise; ANSI/ISO C > does not specify anything having to do with signals. This is a misunderstanding: I didn't mean to say that Posix doesn't include `raise'. I wanted to say that `kill' existed on Unix platforms long before the introduction of `raise' by ANSI C. > Anyway, I've got no problem with using autoconf for this Neither have I. > but I can't think of any case where it would make a difference. In a multithreaded application? Or on an old platform that doesn't have `raise'?