RE: sigaction & pthread_sigmask

[drifting at pioneerwireless dot ca]

Sorry for the confusion... I forgot that the LGPL had a different
name in the past....


Quoting "Burkhardt, Glenn" <Glenn.Burkhardt@goodrich.com>:

> Thank you, Ross.  Sorry I wasn't paying closer attention.
>
> The timer code is available here:
> http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/glibc/glibc-linuxthreads-2.5.tar.bz2
>
> The code I posted is from an older code set, but the current is
> virtually the same, and is clearly marked with the "GNU Lesser General
> Public License".
>
> In any case, I believe that basic facilities like signals and timers
> that are bound up in a threads implementation would be a good addition
> to pthreads-win32.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pthreads-win32-owner@sourceware.org
> > [mailto:pthreads-win32-owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Ross Johnson
> > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 9:28 PM
> > To: John E. Bossom
> > Cc: pthreads-win32@sourceware.org
> > Subject: Re: sigaction & pthread_sigmask
> >
> > The timers code is from the GNU C library, which the comments
> > in the included header file says is LGPL, so it would be ok to use.
> >
> > However, if the contributors to pthreads-win32 were to agree
> > in future to change to a license other than the LGPL or GPL
> > then this code would need to be completely removed or replaced.
> >
> > Regards.
> > Ross
> >
> > John E. Bossom wrote:
> > >
> > > Your contribution has comments that it is licensed under the GNU
> > > Public License. This, if included in pthreads-win32, would
> > upsurp the
> > > LGPL license designation of pthreads-win32 and thus prevent
> > commercial
> > > use of pthreads-win32 (something LGPL permits provided it
> > is used as a
> > > shared library - use of the static library renders the license GPL,
> > > though) Are you the original author of this code? Would you
> > consider
> > > changing the license? Have you already published the package as GPL?
> > >
> > > Ross, comments?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > John.
> > >
> > > Quoting "Burkhardt, Glenn" <Glenn.Burkhardt@goodrich.com>:
> > >
> > >> I think so.  Semaphores might seem out of scope, but they're an
> > >> integral part of concurrent programming.  Signals need to
> > be thread
> > >> smart, so they're naturally part of a thread implementation.
> > >> So are timers - attached is a pthreads compatible version of Posix
> > >> timers, but it's lacking the function of sending a signal
> > to a thread
> > >> when a timer has expired.
> > >>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: pthreads-win32-owner@sourceware.org
> > >>> [mailto:pthreads-win32-owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of William
> > >>> Ahern
> > >>> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 1:58 AM
> > >>> To: pthreads-win32@sourceware.org
> > >>> Subject: sigaction & pthread_sigmask
> > >>>
> > >>> Would it be worthwhile to submit a sigaction, sigwait,
> > sigprocmask,
> > >>> pthread_sigmask patch? Or are signals strictly outside
> > the scope of
> > >>> the project?
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm working on sigaction and sigwait
> > implementations--using atomic
> > >>> CAS operations for async-safety--intended for a portable kqueue
> > >>> library. But the library depends on
> > >>> pthreads-w32 anyhow, and it would be cleaner to simply
> > patch upstream.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >