Re: PATCH: Readline on MinGW

[Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 11:06:45PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
>>I am not sure `raise' is a 100% compatible replacement for `kill',
>>since the latter really delivers a signal, and so is subject to rules
>>regarding blocked signals, while `raise' simlpy calls the signal
>>handler and AFAIK is not specified to observe blocked signals.
>>
>>So I suggest to use `raise' only on systems, such as MinGW, which lack
>>`kill', not everywhere.
> 
> 
> Could you give me a reference for this?  POSIX disagrees:
> 
>   http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/raise.html

Yes, I looked at that (and the GNU/Linux, and Solaris manual pages) 
before making that change.  But, I'm happy to change the code to check 
for "kill", and use "raise" only if unavailable, as Eli suggests, if 
that's necessary.

Eli, just to be clear, you said you "support" the patches I posted (with 
this exception).  I'm interpreting that as "I hope they go into upstream 
readline", rather than as "it's OK to check these patches into the GDB 
repository."  If you actually meant the latter, let me know. :-)

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304