This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR target/24071

From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
To: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:41:24 -0800
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR target/24071
References: <200610281213.06178.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> <4546C4A1.4040701@codesourcery.com> <200610311436.02563.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr>

Eric Botcazou wrote:

The alternative would be, inside the mutex:
   if (__gthread_active < 0) {
     __gthread_active = 0;
     __gthrw_(pthread_once) (...);
   }
and then, instead of "__gthread_active++":
   else
     __gthread_active = 0;
On second thoughts, I don't think this is safe. The first test in my patch

if (__gthread_active < 0)

is not protected to avoid taking a lock on the main code path so __gthread_active must never be 0 when the program is threaded.

I suck. :-(

Thanks for not blindly following me off the cliff. :-)

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713

References:
- [PATCH] Fix PR target/24071
  - From: Eric Botcazou
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR target/24071
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR target/24071
  - From: Eric Botcazou

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]