From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 28 09:50:36 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-threads@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0965216A403 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 09:50:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8FC943D46 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 09:50:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k3S9oZOu036659 for ; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 09:50:35 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k3S9oZHj036658; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 09:50:35 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 09:50:35 GMT Message-Id: <200604280950.k3S9oZHj036658@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.org From: Andriy Gapon Cc: Subject: Re: threads/94176: KSE: sigwait doesn't recieve SIGWINCH sent by pthread_kill() or kill -WINCH X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Andriy Gapon List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 09:50:36 -0000 The following reply was made to PR threads/94176; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Andriy Gapon To: eugeny gladkih Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, David Xu Subject: Re: threads/94176: KSE: sigwait doesn't recieve SIGWINCH sent by pthread_kill() or kill -WINCH Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:48:23 +0300 on 27/04/2006 19:50 eugeny gladkih said the following: >>>>>> "AG" == Andriy Gapon writes: [snip] > AG> http://condor.wesleyan.edu/cgi-bin/man.cgi?section=2&topic=sigwait [snip] > why so stupid code should be presented in all software wanted > just to wait the signal? :( Eugeny, I already read your subsequent email, but I still would like to point that the link I gave and what David says explain pretty good the reason why this is needed. > sigwait'ed signal is not ignored one! we DON'T ignore it we DO > wait for it. I'm afraid there is another problem with SIGTERM > which will terminate process. am I right, yeah? > -- Andriy Gapon