On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 10:59:42AM -0500, Brian Ford wrote: >> However, I'll look at your code again with my new understanding of your >> intent. > >No need. Just before falling a sleep last night, I remembered a case I >had not covered correctly. If the initialization fails the first time, >the event is not reset. Can this just be a fatal condition?
I think it should be, yes. Otherwise, you just have cascading failures and the thing that eventually causes cygwin to crash may not be the root cause of the problem. >I'll cook up a muto based solution in the next few minutes now >that I understand your preference. But, I'd like an opinion on the >question above. Thanks very much for the offer, but please don't bother. I took this opportunity to do some of the cleanup that I was talking about. I also implemented a "close handle on final use" option to mutos so that the event doesn't stay around after the final thread releases it. I need to do a little debugging on what I have but it does try to clean up the windows code slightly. I even eliminated the thread event synchronization entirely. Btw, a muto is supposed to be equivalent to a windows mutex in most respects except that it is supposed to be somewhat lighter weight. cgf
