signals and _REENT
Thu Feb 26 22:35:00 GMT 2015
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Freddie Chopin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: email@example.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 4:55:00 PM
> Subject: Re: signals and _REENT
> On 02/26/2015 10:41 PM, Jeff Johnston wrote:
> > Actually I did miss something. Since we are using the global list,
> > we have to thread protect it with locking and unlocking. The normal way
> > would be
> > to add two new locks: __sigfunc_lock_acquire() and __sigfunc_lock_release()
> > which
> > are needed if not single threaded. This will cause some breakage for
> > builds that
> > use threads until they define these locks. Perhaps a single global reent
> > lock might
> > be helpful.
> In that case maybe it would be a good idea to "reuse" the lock that is
> used with _GLOBAL_REENT in stdio? Or do you think separate lock for
> signals and separate lock for stdio would be a better option (smaller
> chance of congestion)?
I had thought of that. I'm ok with using the _newlib_sfp_lock_start and
_newlib_sfp_lock_end macros as they are defined in stdio/local.h. If no one
objects, I can do that at least for now.
-- Jeff J.
More information about the Newlib