On Dec 8, 2007 5:30 PM, Adam Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 8, 2007 5:21 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hm... Does this mean you're *always* creating an extra thread to handle > > signals? > > Yup, Py_Initialize will do it.
That's unacceptable. It must be possible to build Python without threads (and still support signals -- in fact one could argue that signals make *more* sense when there are no threads :-). [...] > To summarize, there's two problems to be solved: > 1) low-level corruption in the signal handlers as they record a new > signal, such as in Py_AddPendingCalls This is purely theoretical, right? Has anyone ever observed this? > 2) high-level wakeup race: "check for pending signals, have a signal > come in, then call a blocking syscall/library (oblivious to the new > signal)." Right. That's the race which really does happen, and for which the current lame-y work-around is to use a short timeout. [...] > > Anyway, I would still like to discuss this on #python-dev Monday. > > Adam, in what time zone are you? (I'm PST.) Who else is interested? > > MST. Unfortunately I can't stay at work later than 5:30 or so which would be too early for you I believe. I could try again after 8pm, your 9pm. Would that work at all? Otherwise I'd rather try earlier in the day if that works at all for you. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
