Hi kusma,
On Sat, 1 Dec 2012, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Johannes Schindelin
johannes.schinde...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
Set a control-handler to prevent the process from terminating, and
simulate SIGINT so it can be
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Johannes Schindelin
johannes.schinde...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi kusma,
On Sat, 1 Dec 2012, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Johannes Schindelin
johannes.schinde...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
Set a
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Erik Faye-Lund kusmab...@gmail.com writes:
@@ -1538,13 +1563,7 @@ static sig_handler_t timer_fn = SIG_DFL;
static unsigned __stdcall ticktack(void *dummy)
{
while (WaitForSingleObject(timer_event,
Erik Faye-Lund kusmab...@gmail.com writes:
That patch corrected the exit-code for our SIGALRM's SIG_DFL routine;
the old code did die(Alarm);, but the new one does fputs(Alarm
clock\n, stderr); exit(128 + SIGALRM)
Please double check the result when I push out the 'pu'
branch.
The
Erik Faye-Lund kusmab...@gmail.com writes:
@@ -1538,13 +1563,7 @@ static sig_handler_t timer_fn = SIG_DFL;
static unsigned __stdcall ticktack(void *dummy)
{
while (WaitForSingleObject(timer_event, timer_interval) ==
WAIT_TIMEOUT) {
- if (timer_fn == SIG_DFL) {
-
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 06:58:11PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
Set a control-handler to prevent the process from terminating, and
simulate SIGINT so it can be handled by a
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Johannes Schindelin
johannes.schinde...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
Set a control-handler to prevent the process from terminating, and
simulate SIGINT so it can be handled by a signal-handler as usual.
One thing you might
On Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 01:31:23PM +0100, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
One thing you might want to mention is that the fgetc() handling is not
thread-safe, and intentionally so: if two threads read from the same
console, we are in trouble anyway.
That makes sense to me, but I'm confused why it
Hi,
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
Set a control-handler to prevent the process from terminating, and
simulate SIGINT so it can be handled by a signal-handler as usual.
One thing you might want to mention is that the fgetc() handling is not
thread-safe, and intentionally so: if
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 06:58:11PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
Set a control-handler to prevent the process from terminating, and
simulate SIGINT so it can be handled by a signal-handler as usual.
One thing you might want to
Set a control-handler to prevent the process from terminating, and
simulate SIGINT so it can be handled by a signal-handler as usual.
Signed-off-by: Erik Faye-Lund kusmab...@gmail.com
---
compat/mingw.c | 76 ++
compat/mingw.h | 6 +
2
11 matches
Mail list logo
