1.3.4?

[Matt]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Robert Collins wrote:

> > I'm leaning toward holding off releasing a threaded Python until your
> > muto upgrade in complete.  Do you concur?
>
> There's more than the muto change to make it "good". The second
> statement (the wait) and other threads calling the signal() clause need
> to be protected from each other. What that requires is a lock _that is
> reset when the wait function is called_. This does not exist on 95 at
> all (No SignalObjectAndWait). On NT that cannot be done for
> CriticalSections at all, so I'm going to have to find somewaht to create
> SignalMutoAndWait. I've some ideas, but nothing concrete just yet. (Any
> realtime programmers want to pop up and offer some ring 3 assembler to
> achieve this?)

MSDN says MsgWaitForMultipleObjects can be used instead of
SignalObjectAndWait in certain circumstances. While it doesn't support
Critical Sections, it is supported on win9x.

--
http://www.clock.org/~matt