I just removed the extra debug line in queue.h
that set the "next" pointer to -1 then the element was removed.
Since I was told that the problem still occurs with an old queue.h
I don;t think that that will fix it but we might as well try it
again with this change.On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Jonathan Lemon wrote: > > In article <local.mail.freebsd-current/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >you write: > > >In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ju > > >lian Elischer writes: > > >>The big problem at the moment is that something in the > > >>source tree as a whole, and probably something that came in with KSE > > >>is stopping us from successfully compiling a working libc_r. > > >>(a bit ironic really). > > > > > >Is the new > > > > > > (elm)->field.tqe_next = (void *)-1; > > > > > >in TAILQ_REMOVE a likely candidate? That could easily tickle old > > >bugs in other code. The libc_r code does use a lot of TAILQ macros. > > > > >From casual inspection of the sources, it appears this may be the case: > > > > uthread/pthread_private.h: > > #define PTHREAD_WORKQ_REMOVE(thrd) do { \ > > TAILQ_REMOVE(&_workq,thrd,qe); \ > > (thrd)->flags &= ~PTHREAD_FLAGS_IN_WORKQ; \ > > } while (0) > > > > uthread/uthread_kern.c (in multiple locations): > > TAILQ_FOREACH(pthread, &_workq, qe) { > > .... > > PTHREAD_WORKQ_REMOVE(pthread); > > } > > This used to be safe as long as the element removed wasn't re-added to > another queue using the same link. There are other places in libc_r > where we do re-use the same link (remove from one list and add to > another), but roll our own loop in that case: > > for (p = TAILQ_FIRST(&q); p != NULL; p = p_next) { > p_next = TAILQ_NEXT(p, p_qe); > ... > TAILQ_REMOVE(&q, pthread, p_qe); > ... > } > > -- > Dan Eischen > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
