Yes, that patch actually does look very reasonable. Does it change the test results you've seen, at all?
--Andrew Whitworth On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Andy Dougherty <[email protected]> wrote: > I've never really done any threads programming, so I could be quite off > here, but it looks to me as if there's a race condition in src/alarm.c in > the threads branch. Specifically, Parrot_alarm_init() creates a thread > that checks sleep_cond before it initializes sleep_cond. (Similar remarks > hold for alarm_lock.) > > Does this patch look appropriate? > > diff --git a/src/alarm.c b/src/alarm.c > index 298387f..0ec6a1f 100644 > --- a/src/alarm.c > +++ b/src/alarm.c > @@ -56,9 +56,9 @@ Parrot_alarm_init(void) > { > ASSERT_ARGS(Parrot_alarm_init) > Parrot_thread thread; > - THREAD_CREATE_JOINABLE(thread, Parrot_alarm_runloop, NULL); > MUTEX_INIT(alarm_lock); > COND_INIT(sleep_cond); > + THREAD_CREATE_JOINABLE(thread, Parrot_alarm_runloop, NULL); > } > > /* > > -- > Andy Dougherty [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev _______________________________________________ http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
