Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 13:16:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com> To: "Richard Seaman, Jr." <lists@tar.com> Cc: "current@freebsd.org" <current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Another Serious libc_r problem Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981020131031.11042E-100000@orkan.canonware.com> In-Reply-To: <199810201805.NAA11025@ns.tar.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 20 Oct 1998, Richard Seaman, Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 19 Oct 1998 18:03:22 -0700 (PDT), Jason Evans wrote: > > >Hmm, your test case is very similar to some code that was causing deadlock > >for me. However, I boiled it down to the following code as being the > >actual bug. We may be seeing the same thing (but maybe not; I haven't had > >time to dig into this all the way). > > > >Jason > > I think the problem in your code is that you expect to be able to recursively > lock a mutex in the same thread, using the default mutex type. I don't > think this is a bug, since the "default" mutex type is implementation > defined, if I'm not mistaken. Did you actually run the code? The point I was trying to make is that the code does _not_ deadlock for the default (fast mutex). I'm not sure that this is a bug, but it is different than the behavior I've seen on other systems. Can someone say whether this is allowed by the POSIX spec? Jason Jason Evans Email: [jasone@canonware.com] Web: [http://www.canonware.com/~jasone] Home phone: [(650) 856-8204] Work phone: [(415) 808-8742] Quote: ["Invention is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration" - Thomas Edison] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.3.96.981020131031.11042E-100000>