Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch

>A quick test program that runs in an infinite loop reading a file shows
>that the thread does *not* enter alertable state just from that normal
>I/O :-( I need to add an explicit SleepEx(0) to make it do
>that... Which
>means that if you both need to execute the signal handler on the main
>thread, and don't want to mess around with exceptions, you need to add
>polling somewhere in the main thread anyway.

Oh yeah, this is all beside the point if either
a) The signal handlers are already thread-safe (after all, the CONNX
guys called it on a different thread. Did they change anything in the
actual signal handlers, that we know of?)
b) The signal handlers *can be made* thread-safe fairly easy (no need
for re-entrant, but any variable access needs to be synchronized)

If they are, then you can fire the signal handlers on a separate thread,
and just be done with it.

//Mahnus