Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 08:28:53PM -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
Luke wrote:
it's come to my attention that NPTL cannot cope with jumping out
of a cancellation handler.
Tough noogies, as it were. See
it'll bother me later but for now it doesn't :)
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 06:56:57AM -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> >>>there is some code in FreeDCE which expects to be able to jump out
> >>>of a cancellation handler
> >>
> >>Then FreeDCE should be fixed to be POSIX-compliant, I think.
> >>Or is there something sub
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
there is some code in FreeDCE which expects to be able to jump out
of a cancellation handler
Then FreeDCE should be fixed to be POSIX-compliant, I think.
Or is there something subtle going on here?
the behaviour of LinuxThreads is different from NPTL.
therefor
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 08:28:53PM -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Luke wrote:
> > it's come to my attention that NPTL cannot cope with jumping out
> > of a cancellation handler.
>
> Tough noogies, as it were. See
it'll bother me later but for now it doesn't :)
> > there is some code in FreeDCE whi
Luke wrote:
> it's come to my attention that NPTL cannot cope with jumping out
> of a cancellation handler.
Tough noogies, as it were. See
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/pthread_cleanup_pop.html
> there is some code in FreeDCE which expects to be able to jump out
> of a can
it's come to my attention that NPTL cannot cope with jumping out
of a cancellation handler.
i thought you might like to be made aware of this in case you weren't
already because this has been discovered to have an impact on the way
that FreeDCE operates.
there is some code in FreeDCE which expect
