You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by rb...@covalent.net on 2000/04/29 21:57:21 UTC
Re: Supporting non-UNIX98 sigwait in APR
APR has decided not to implement signals, because they are not
portable. There was a time that we had signals in APR, and I had
implemented asynchronous signals on Windows, but it was decided this
really wasn't worth it, because Apache shouldn't be using signals. Since
Apache 2.0 only uses signals in single-threaded processes, I don't believe
this is important. If after 2.0 is released, we want to take another look
at signals in APR, we should do it then. I am working very hard to hold
APR 1.0 to just what Apache requires. This is the original design plan
for APR 1.0, because if we add things to APR, that holds up Apache 2.0.
Ryan
On Sat, 29 Apr 2000, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> UNIX98 says that
>
> int sigwait(const sigset_t *, int *);
>
> is correct. There are however a few non-conforming systems which
> only support
>
> int sigwait(const sigset_t *);
>
> They are semantically equivalent. The question is now basically
> whether this belongs into APR and whether adding ap_sigwait() is
> considered useful.
>
> - Sascha
>
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Supporting non-UNIX98 sigwait in APR
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
On Sun, 30 Apr 2000, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 03:57:21PM -0400, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> >
> > APR has decided not to implement signals, because they are not
> > portable. There was a time that we had signals in APR, and I had
> > implemented asynchronous signals on Windows, but it was decided this
> > really wasn't worth it, because Apache shouldn't be using signals. Since
> > Apache 2.0 only uses signals in single-threaded processes, I don't believe
> > this is important.
>
> Hm, sigwait is used by mpmt_pthread as well.
It shouldn't anymore. This is left over from when the child processes
were accepting signals.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Supporting non-UNIX98 sigwait in APR
Posted by Sascha Schumann <sa...@schumann.cx>.
On Sat, Apr 29, 2000 at 03:57:21PM -0400, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
>
> APR has decided not to implement signals, because they are not
> portable. There was a time that we had signals in APR, and I had
> implemented asynchronous signals on Windows, but it was decided this
> really wasn't worth it, because Apache shouldn't be using signals. Since
> Apache 2.0 only uses signals in single-threaded processes, I don't believe
> this is important.
Hm, sigwait is used by mpmt_pthread as well.
Nevertheless, I'll stuff the ap_sigwait elsewhere then.
- Sascha