On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 09:04:56PM -0400, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > Yes, that is what I was getting at. Signals and interrupts are
> > a very old concept, and I've always thought that exceptions are
> > a more evolved version of the same concept. So it would make
> > sense to use a more versatile
On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 05:40:03PM -0400, Roland McGrath wrote:
> Yes, sorry for the short response. That was before the coffee.
>
> I don't really know how to answer your message, since it wasn't quite clear
> what the question was. Were you suggesting that Hurd signals should work
> by sendin
Yes, sorry for the short response. That was before the coffee.
I don't really know how to answer your message, since it wasn't quite clear
what the question was. Were you suggesting that Hurd signals should work
by sending exception_raise messages to task or thread exception ports?
__
On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 02:57:09PM -0400, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I think you are confused about what Mach exceptions are.
This is also possible. The Mach kernel interfaces docs are
a bit thin on the subject. Could you enlighten me?
Thanks.
Igor
___
I think you are confused about what Mach exceptions are.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
I've been looking through the glibc code that handles signals
for Hurd. At the same time I'm writing up a some docs on that
so someone else won't have to do it again.
What I'm surprised by is that signals are passed between processes
using simple RPC messages. Mach has an exception facility
for t
On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 10:08:25AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 08:57:15AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > We agreed, in an inspiring coordinated
