Re: is NetBSD's pthread_setcancelstate() async-signal-safe?

[Richard Hansen <rhansen%bbn.com@localhost>]

On 2014-05-22 13:44, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> Richard Hansen <rhansen%bbn.com@localhost> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The Austin Group (POSIX standards body) is currently considering the
>> following bug report:
>> 
>>     Bug #615: pthread_setcancelstate should be async-signal-safe
>>     http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=615
>> 
>> Before acting on it, the group would like to know how existing
> 
> Besides NetBSD for which i can't speak i wonder where the rush
> comes from?

There is no rush -- that bug is just the next one the group decided to
(re-)look at.  Note that the bug is over a year and a half old.

> Isn't the ISO C body in the process of finding a new
> definition of async-safety?

Do you mean C++?  I am unaware of any pending changes to C regarding
signal safety, but I haven't been actively following wg14.  (Nick
Stoughton is probably in a better position to answer this question.)

> I remember a message from Mr. Boehm that said so.

Are you referring to:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n3910.html

Notable quote from the above document:

    In particular, we do not want to reinvent Posix' notion of
    async-signal-safe functions here.

> So how can this question be answered, then?

According to the POSIX Issue 7 definition of async-signal-safe.  (Issue
7 is based on C99, so any changes made in C11 and later are irrelevant
for this bug, as is anything related to C++.)

Hope this helps,
Richard