Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.std.c > #6117

Re: OOM and N2471 (Stackable, thread local, signal guards)

Show all headers | View raw

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
> William Ahern <william@25thandClement.com> writes:
<snip>
>> proposal haven't been clearly thought through.  Even the proposal seems to
>> equivocate dynamic memory allocation with async signal safety:  "potential
>> dynamic memory allocation equals lack of async signal safety." ibid.
>>
>> Am I alone?  Am I missing something?
<snip>
> Incidentally, the phrasing of the sentence with "equivocate" in
> it seems a bit off to me.  What I think you mean is the proposal
> is confused about the question of whether dynamic memory
> allocation is async signal safe.  If that is what you mean, I got
> it, but it took me several minutes to get there.  And if that is
> not what you mean then I don't know what you mean.  (None of that
> affects my reaction to the proposal.)

Your interpretation is correct. Perhaps I intended to write "equivocate...
with lack of async signal safety". I stumbled over that bit myself
re-reading it. But, yes, what I was getting it was that the proposal seemed
confused on this point.

Back to comp.std.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

OOM and N2471 (Stackable, thread local, signal guards) William Ahern <william@25thandClement.com> - 2020-04-08 19:21 -0700
  Re: OOM and N2471 (Stackable, thread local, signal guards) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-05-08 07:56 -0700
    Re: OOM and N2471 (Stackable, thread local, signal guards) William Ahern <william@25thandClement.com> - 2020-05-08 13:01 -0700

csiph-web