Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues <at> gmx.de> writes: > > Yes, definitely. And a testsuite addition to Autoconf or Automake to > > ensure this would be good, I guess. > > Proposed patch against Autoconf. Tested on GNU/Linux and Cygwin: as it
cygwin 1.5.x, I presume? > is, the patch hasn't caused a failure in several runs. When I comment > out the > $icache_file->lock (LOCK_EX); > > line in bin/autom4te.in or go for a shared lock with LOCK_SH, rebuild, > then the test has a fairly high chance of failing. Your methods of testing seem sane. I agree that using no lock or just LOCK_SH are insufficient to protect the second process from seeing modifications made while the first still owns the file. > OK to apply? > > Thanks, > Ralf > > New test to ensure autom4te cache file locking works. > > * tests/tools.at (autom4te cache locking): New test. > Report by Eric Blake. Yes, looks good to me. -- Eric Blake
