Re: why "in_sighandler"?

[YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu]

>>>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:18:38 +0200, Jan Djärv <address@hidden> said:

> I don't like it, because it assumes things are "probably OK" to run
> in the signal handler (i.e. pthread_mutex_lock/unlock).  I still
> think it might hang if a Gnome thread is in mutex_lock and a signal
> arrives and then the signal handler also enters mutex_lock.

Does it mean the quote from IEEE Std 1003.1 did not convince you?

> It is one assumtion against another, neither suggestion is without
> flaws (we need SYNC_INPUT for that).

No assumption is needed to say that the current code leads to a
problem under a certain scenario.

Suppose that we abandon emacs_blocked_malloc and so on when
HAVE_GTK_AND_PTHREAD is defined.  I think it is as safe as other
non-GNU-malloc systems where emacs_blocked_malloc and so on are not
used, provided that malloc-related functions are thread-safe.  What do
you think about that?

                                   YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu
                                address@hidden