From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Julian Graham Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: Why launch the Guile signal delivery thread on exit? (was Re: guile 2.0.9 build on mingw) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:06:41 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83sj1hv2ml.fsf@gnu.org> <874ndx9y7h.fsf@pobox.com> <83ip2bt4qk.fsf@gnu.org> <8761xqhyyt.fsf@gnu.org> <83li6mt18y.fsf@gnu.org> <83wqq3mcq9.fsf@gnu.org> <87k3m3kor5.fsf@gnu.org> <83ehcalysu.fsf@gnu.org> <87sj0pvl4a.fsf@tines.lan> <837gi1n3v5.fsf@gnu.org> <87k3m1vg8b.fsf@tines.lan> <83txl4lhby.fsf@gnu.org> <87txl4mh5p.fsf@gnu.org> <83a9mvkysg.fsf@gnu.org> <87li67cck5.fsf_-_@tines.lan> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1371658019 32367 80.91.229.3 (19 Jun 2013 16:06:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:06:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Guile Users , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ludovic_Court=E8s?= To: Mark H Weaver Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 19 18:06:57 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UpKuO-0003z3-Mw for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 18:06:56 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43058 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UpKuO-00066A-8h for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:06:56 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43884) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UpKuG-00063O-6X for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:06:49 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UpKuA-0005Ol-UE for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:06:48 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pd0-f173.google.com ([209.85.192.173]:39477) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UpKuA-0005M9-Mn; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:06:42 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-pd0-f173.google.com with SMTP id v14so5240477pde.4 for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:06:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=lXj5gp0biM7+yl62Gxk8j7ANvPHyxoKW+lc1awmj8eI=; b=rKRbo3pPAtJ4dIRWHUf1b+XIRozZWlJaJt9id6vSNHqVXxov256hesVXO7VA1G7iTT +SSNUTdBZ8AjHebCv0zbCRdHFJcxZiiCBfS1K6Ud62uRXkWmAQi9Y1A+OW4t4aSio93L Zn5b/oTaQgfTfMypHC5VO09hmvg6HY4ALBgX2n4wtpYvb9GXHo7hYdmXBYHtgiRuz6UP ZrLMasebFcPuSB5ROmb0378l1eX3O6M7b6AM/NL/DE/I7Uf2/0aKi27BVLPcNsXy5cLB rEoierXSTYJCcB8sdA1AUv6CcoeKgo89ucD2x4WmXMF0rBM76m2SMG9NBqcacnhZrW2X 2nXg== X-Received: by 10.66.102.70 with SMTP id fm6mr7340607pab.78.1371658001273; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:06:41 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.70.129.205 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:06:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87li67cck5.fsf_-_@tines.lan> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.85.192.173 X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:10476 Archived-At: Hi Mark and Eli, On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Mark H Weaver wrote: > Could you help us understand some code you added to Guile in 2007? Wow, that was a long time ago! :) > Julian, can you remember why you did this? I don't understand the > comment above. What does "it" refer to? I would that guess that "it" > is the signal handling thread, but how could we be shutting down that > thread if it hadn't yet been launched? My memories a bit foggy (and I won't be able to take a deep dive into the code until I get home from work), but my recollection is that there was something slightly dangerous about calling `scm_i_close_signal_pipe' if the signal handling thread hadn't been launched, since if it launched during shutdown it would hang. (See my comments in `scm_i_close_signal_pipe' to that effect.) So I think I opted to start it explicitly to avoid this possibility. Admittedly it's not terribly elegant. Does that help? Regards, Julian