> - we apply the generic / bug fix patch that you already posted, except > without the extra thread_admin_mutex locking (which I think we > concluded we can't justify) - that will be to HEAD
Agreed, though see below... > - I'll have a go at devising a test for the critical section in > make_jmpbuf bug; if I succeed, I'll run the test on 1.8.x too, and > port the fix over Agreed (though you wanted to remove that critical section for HEAD, right?) > - you continue on the C enhancements and Scheme code for SRFI-18, as > already discussed and agreed Agreed. > - once all of your code and tests are in (HEAD), we can see if there > are any _actual_ generic thread code issues that we need to address, > and address them. > > What do you think? Agreed. Sounds good! > (And for the same reason, I don't think we should apply your new code > to CVS yet, because I don't think we've yet demonstrated an actual > problem with the existing code - is that right?) Well, I think I *am* seeing a problem with existing code, most likely related to the fact that the cond_wait while sleeping for GC is on different mutexes but the same condition variable. I believe the manifestation of this, as I explained in an earlier email, is that sometimes a thread will go to sleep for GC and never wake up. Regards, Julian
