From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29817 invoked by alias); 1 Sep 2014 22:04:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 29803 invoked by uid 89); 1 Sep 2014 22:04:20 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-yk0-f178.google.com Received: from mail-yk0-f178.google.com (HELO mail-yk0-f178.google.com) (209.85.160.178) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 01 Sep 2014 22:04:19 +0000 Received: by mail-yk0-f178.google.com with SMTP id q200so3640912ykb.9 for ; Mon, 01 Sep 2014 15:04:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.142.7 with SMTP id h7mr5446954yhj.133.1409609057071; Mon, 01 Sep 2014 15:04:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.66.138 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Sep 2014 15:04:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83vbp7fer3.fsf@gnu.org> References: <834mwsh2nu.fsf@gnu.org> <8338ccgj78.fsf@gnu.org> <87ppffabw8.fsf@gnu.org> <83y4u3flr2.fsf@gnu.org> <87r3zv71qy.fsf@gnu.org> <83vbp7fer3.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 22:04:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH][PR guile/17247] Block SIGCHLD while initializing Guile From: Doug Evans To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= , guile-devel , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-09/txt/msg00035.txt.bz2 On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) >> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, guile-devel@gnu.org >> Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 18:18:45 +0200 >> >> Eli Zaretskii skribis: >> >> > Perhaps we should request GC and Guile to provide capabilities to >> > disable threads at run time, then. >> >> I don=E2=80=99t think we need to go this far: reading the recent discuss= ions, it >> seems Doug found a way to make sure Guile=E2=80=99s and libgc=E2=80=99s = internal threads >> don=E2=80=99t receive signals that GDB is interested in, which should be= enough >> for practical purposes. > > That's just the tip of an iceberg, I'm afraid. In the interests of seeking clarification early and clearly, can you elabor= ate? I'm not saying there aren't issues, I'm just wondering if you have anything specific that you are thinking of.