Author vstinner
Recipients benjamin.peterson, exarkun, gregory.p.smith, loewis, marcin.bachry, neologix, pitrou, python-dev, schmichael, spiv, tseaver, vstinner
Date 2011-05-07.10:00:57
SpamBayes Score 3.53051e-14
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1304762460.2.0.823890484797.issue8407@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
> I mistakenly removed your pending_signals-2 patch
> I'm really sorry about this, could you re-post it?

No problem, anyway I worked on a new version in the train.

> So, if anything, you shouldn't check for a pending signal [in sigwait]

Right, fixed in the new patch.

--

pending_signals-3.patch:
 - don't check for pending signals in sigwait()
 - pthread_kill() doc: it is not a good idea to say that pthread_kill() with signum=0 can be used to check if a thread identifier is valid => such test does crash (SIGSEGV) on my Linux box. I changed the doc to say that it can be used to check if a thread is still running (which is different).
 - add a dedicated test for sigpending()
 - doc: explain how to get a thread identifier for pthread_kill()
 - don't compile pthread_kill() without threads: you cannot get a valid thread identifier without the _thread module

I think that the patch is ready to be commited. Anyone for a last review? (antoine, neologix?)
History
Date User Action Args
2011-05-07 10:01:01vstinnersetrecipients: + vstinner, loewis, gregory.p.smith, spiv, exarkun, tseaver, pitrou, benjamin.peterson, marcin.bachry, schmichael, neologix, python-dev
2011-05-07 10:01:00vstinnersetmessageid: <1304762460.2.0.823890484797.issue8407@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2011-05-07 10:00:59vstinnerlinkissue8407 messages
2011-05-07 10:00:59vstinnercreate