Donn, I was able to duplicate my problem in C using SIGVTALRM.
Can someone explain the impact of using -V0 ? What does it do to performance, etc? Mike Sent from my iPad > On Aug 13, 2014, at 9:56 AM, Donn Cave <d...@avvanta.com> wrote: > > [ ... re -V0 ] >> Thanks, this solved the problem. >> >> I would like to know more about what the signals are doing, and >> what am I giving up by disabling them? >> >> My hope is I can then go back to the dll expert and ask why this >> is causing their library a problem and try to see if they can >> solve the problem from their end, etc. > > I'm disgracefully ignorant about that. When I've been forced to > run this way, it doesn't seem to do any very obvious immediate > harm to the application at all, but I could be missing long term > effects. > > The problem with the library might be easy to fix, and in principle > it's sure worth looking into - while the GHC runtime delivers signals > on an exceptionally massive scale, there are plenty of normal UNIX > applications that use signals, maybe timers just like this for example, > and it's easy to set up a similar test environment using setitimer(2) > to provide the signal bombardment. (I believe GHC actually uses > SIGVTALRM rather than SIGALRM, but don't think it will make any > difference.) > > But realistically, in the end sometimes we can't get a fix for it, > so it's interesting to know how -V0 works out as a work-around. > I hope you will keep us posted. > > Donn _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
