These issues are best put in the tracker so they don't get lost -
especially at the moment with lots of regulars at pycon.
It would also be good to know if there is an actual behaviour bug caused
by this (ie, what problems can be observed which are caused by the
current code?)
Cheers,
Mark
On 10/03/2011 12:25 PM, Sturla Molden wrote:
Atomic operations (InterlockedCompareExchange, et al.) are used on the
field 'owned' in NRMUTEX. These methods require the memory to be aligned
on 32-byte boundaries. They also require the volatile qualifer. Three
small changes are therefore needed (see below).
Regards,
Sturla Molden
typedef struct NRMUTEX {
volatile LONG owned ; /* Bugfix: remember volatile */
DWORD thread_id ;
HANDLE hevent ;
} NRMUTEX, *PNRMUTEX;
NRMUTEX
AllocNonRecursiveMutex(void)
{
PNRMUTEX mutex = (PNRMUTEX)_aligned_malloc(sizeof(NRMUTEX),32) ; /*
Bugfix: align to 32-bytes */
if (mutex && !InitializeNonRecursiveMutex(mutex))
{
free(mutex) ;
mutex = NULL ;
}
return mutex ;
}
void
FreeNonRecursiveMutex(PNRMUTEX mutex)
{
if (mutex)
{
DeleteNonRecursiveMutex(mutex) ;
_aligned_free(mutex) ; /* Bugfix: align to 32-bytes */
}
}
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/skippy.hammond%40gmail.com
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
