Re: why "in_sighandler"?

["Jan Djärv" <jan.h.d@swipnet.se>]

YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu skrev:
>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 13:32:30 +0200, Jan Djärv <jan.h.d@swipnet.se> said:
> 
>> A signal interrupts all threads on a uni-processor machine.
> 
> I can hardly believe that.  Can you give some references saying so?

How can it be otherwise?  If you only have one program counter, that program 
counter must be changed to the signal handler no matter how many threads you 
have, i.e. any previous execution (regardless of thread) is interrupted.

> 
> The same quote from IEEE Std 1003.1 again:
> 
>   All functions not in the above table are considered to be unsafe
>   with respect to signals. In the presence of signals, all functions
>   defined by this volume of IEEE Std 1003.1-2001 shall behave as
>   defined when called from or interrupted by a signal-catching
>   function, with a single exception: when a signal interrupts an
>   unsafe function and the signal-catching function calls an unsafe
>   function, the behavior is undefined.
> 
>   http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/xsh_chap02_04.html
> 
> It says "interrupted by a signal-catching function".  And the
> signal-catching function is executed on the thread that the signal is
> delivered to.  Given no other notes, it is natural to interpret that a
> signal only interrupts the function in the thread that the
> signal-catching function is executed.
> 
> "Multithreading in the Solaris Environment" says:
> 
>   An asynchronous signal interrupts the signalled thread at some
>   arbitrary point in its execution
> 

It is semantics.  When I say interrupted I mean that the signal handling 
function starts to run.  You obviously mean something else.  But this is a 
side issue, it has more to do with reentrance of the function interrupted 
rather than which thread is currently running.

	Jan D.