Re: Let's throw out SCM_NEWCELL

[Chris Cramer]

On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 11:30:57PM +0200, Dirk Herrmann wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, Chris Cramer wrote:
> > To answer your questions, threads that are waiting for a mutex or input
> > would be in a sigsuspend() (for a mutex) or a read()/select()/etc. (for
> > input) call, so they would receive the signal, go to sleep, then wake up,
> > and go back to what they were doing.
> 
> Hmmm....  Wouldn't that mean that these threads still could be interrupted
> at any moment?  Or, in other words, would that mean that we would have to
> disable signals around initializations of objects (at least were such
> initializations could interfere with gc)?

Yes.

-- 
C. Ray C. aka Christopher Cramer
address@hidden
http://www.pyro.net/~crayc/