This is the mail archive of the
newlib@sourceware.org
mailing list for the newlib project.
Re: signals and _REENT
- From: Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn at redhat dot com>
- To: Freddie Chopin <freddie_chopin at op dot pl>
- Cc: newlib at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 17:31:53 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: signals and _REENT
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <54E8FC58 dot 1060503 at op dot pl> <820331943 dot 24407010 dot 1424801251193 dot JavaMail dot zimbra at redhat dot com> <54ECE7F2 dot 60909 at op dot pl> <53234661 dot 25550941 dot 1424885653210 dot JavaMail dot zimbra at redhat dot com> <126282749 dot 26790184 dot 1424979571705 dot JavaMail dot zimbra at redhat dot com> <54EF8A3F dot 90104 at op dot pl> <1144371384 dot 26964184 dot 1424986890495 dot JavaMail dot zimbra at redhat dot com> <54EF9634 dot 3010300 at op dot pl>
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Freddie Chopin" <freddie_chopin@op.pl>
> To: newlib@sourceware.org
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 4:55:00 PM
> Subject: Re: signals and _REENT
>
> On 02/26/2015 10:41 PM, Jeff Johnston wrote:
> > Actually I did miss something. Since we are using the global list,
> > we have to thread protect it with locking and unlocking. The normal way
> > would be
> > to add two new locks: __sigfunc_lock_acquire() and __sigfunc_lock_release()
> > which
> > are needed if not single threaded. This will cause some breakage for
> > builds that
> > use threads until they define these locks. Perhaps a single global reent
> > lock might
> > be helpful.
>
> In that case maybe it would be a good idea to "reuse" the lock that is
> used with _GLOBAL_REENT in stdio? Or do you think separate lock for
> signals and separate lock for stdio would be a better option (smaller
> chance of congestion)?
>
I had thought of that. I'm ok with using the _newlib_sfp_lock_start and
_newlib_sfp_lock_end macros as they are defined in stdio/local.h. If no one
objects, I can do that at least for now.
-- Jeff J.