This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-patches@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: [PATCH] Move per_thread::set() def from fork.cc to perthread.h
- To: <cygwin-patches at cygwin dot com>
- Subject: RE: [PATCH] Move per_thread::set() def from fork.cc to perthread.h
- From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" <g dot r dot vansickle at worldnet dot att dot net>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 21:22:54 -0500
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
> [mailto:cygwin-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com]On Behalf Of Christopher
> Faylor
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 8:25 PM
> To: cygwin-patches@cygwin.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Move per_thread::set() def from fork.cc to
> perthread.h
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 08:13:24PM -0500, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >>>Ah, good point. Do you have any objections then to a perthread.cc?
> >>
> >>I guess not in principle but it seems kind of pointless for one
> >>function.
> >
> >It would be, so what I did was move much of the implementation of
> >per_thread, per_thread_waitq, per_thread_vfork, and
> >per_thread_signal_dispatch into it (just the virtuals right now).
>
> If you mean that you've moved the inline methods into the source file
> then I don't want to do that.
>
No, just the virtuals. Like Robert said, I don't believe they inline.
> >> And, it would be enough of a patch that I'd need an
> >> assignment from you. I don't think we have an assignment on file from
> >> you, do we?
> >
> >No, do you want to fax me one?
>
> It works the other way around. You snail mail me one:
> http://cygwin.com/contrib.html
>
Ok, thanks, I'll take a look.
> cgf
>