Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 30 Jun 2003 18:28:05 -0400 (EDT)
From:      Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
To:        David Xu <davidxu@viatech.com.cn>
Cc:        xiong jinshan <xiongjinshan@yahoo.com>
Subject:   Re: About the kse signal process
Message-ID:  <Pine.GSO.4.10.10306301826260.20764-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <000701c33f56$9fc98f70$0701a8c0@tiger>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, David Xu wrote:
> From: "xiong jinshan" <xiongjinshan@yahoo.com>
> > 
> > --- Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, xiong jinshan wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Hi,
> > > >   I am wondering that the following piece of code
> > > > can't work with the unix semantics. I tested it
> > > with
> > > > 5.1 release and i386 arch. By unix sementics, if I
> > > > send the SIGALRM to this running programme, it
> > > should
> > > > be received by the thr_func() only, and print a
> > > prompt
> > > > msg on the console.
> > > 
> > > Yes, only thr_func() should receive the alarm.
> > This is the issue. Nothing printed on the console when
> > I sent the signal SIGALRM, it meant that none of the
> > thread received this signal.
[ ... ]
> 
> Missing alarm() call ?

I noticed that too, but I assumed he knew that.  I sent
the alarm with kill(1) from another shell.

-- 
Dan Eischen



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10306301826260.20764-100000>