On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, KJK::Hyperion wrote: > > > At 12.27 15/11/2003, you wrote: > > > >All you need to do is send the STOP signal to the thread. > > > > > > This is a common misunderstanding. I quote from IEEE 1003.1: > > > > > > "[...] > > > > > > Note that pthread_kill() only causes the signal to be handled in the > > > context of the given thread; the signal action (termination or stopping) > > > affects the process as a whole. > > > > > > [...]" > > > > Strange. How do you explain that Kylix uses it ? I've used threads in > > Kylix, and they definitely work with suspend... Probably because for linux, > > each thread is a different process anyway ? (at least till the 2.4 kernels) > > Red Hat has already backported the new NPT to 2.4, and it is included in RH9 > IIRC. I work with SuSE :-) > You can expect that Kylix multithreaded programs won't work very well > under RH9 and newer Linux distributions, if they use TThread.Suspend and > TThread.Resume (implemented using the signals SIGSTOP and SIGCONT). Borland > shows little interest on Kylix updates, giving to the competitors a good > chance to increase market share ;-) > > It is on-topic a little citation of the announcement of Native POSIX Thread > Library. The complete article can be found here: > http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=3D8A6EC1.1010809%40redhat.com&rnum=1 OK, thanks, this cleared up some stuff. Seems that another way will be needed. If it will be possible at all. I don't see how if you can't have per-thread signal handling... I don't think this is a change for the better, but who am I to say so... Michael. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
