In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Daniel M. Eischen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's a quick fix.
Thanks! It seems to fix my test program.
I'll leave it up to you and Jordan whether to commit this before
4.0. It would be nice to have, but I don't have any immediate need
for it.
John
--
John
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, John Polstra wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Daniel Eischen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, John Polstra wrote:
Shouldn't the test against PS_SUSPENDED be "==" instead of "!="?
Yes, it should be "==" instead of "!=".
Go ahead and fix
Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, John Polstra wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Daniel Eischen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, John Polstra wrote:
Shouldn't the test against PS_SUSPENDED be "==" instead of "!="?
Yes, it should be "==" instead
On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 09:30:43AM -0500, Daniel M. Eischen wrote:
I haven't run any other regression tests. I'll do that when I get
some more time. Jason, can you also take a look at these changes and
run some tests on them?
I just moved a couple of days ago and all my test boxes are still
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, John Polstra wrote:
Either pthread_suspend_np() and pthread_resume_np() are broken in
-current or I don't understand them. The attached program (cc
-pthread suspend.c) starts two background threads. Each thread loops
outputting a character ('1' or '2' according to
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Daniel Eischen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, John Polstra wrote:
Shouldn't the test against PS_SUSPENDED be "==" instead of "!="?
Yes, it should be "==" instead of "!=".
Go ahead and fix it if you want :-)
Thanks. I'll ask Jordan if I
