Thanks Evan.
Am 18.01.2016 um 03:59 schrieb Evan Hanson:
> On 2016-01-15 11:31, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
>> I would not be surprised if an innocent reader would read the code
>> with the comment missing and conclude that we save the local variable
>> `stack_limit` and simply assign
On 2016-01-15 11:31, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
> I would not be surprised if an innocent reader would read the code
> with the comment missing and conclude that we save the local variable
> `stack_limit` and simply assign C_stack_limit to `saved_stack_limit`,
> which would bring the bug back.
Sorry for replying to my own message.
Am 14.01.2016 um 22:18 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
> Great that this made it so far.
>
> Am 14.01.2016 um 20:20 schrieb Peter Bex:
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:59:28AM +1300, Evan Hanson wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Attached is a signed-off copy of this
Hi all,
Attached is a signed-off copy of this patch, with some of the info in
the comments moved into the commit message. It won't change anything in
the normal, single-threaded case, and it can only improve behaviour in
multi-threaded programs, so it's fine with me.
Thanks, Jörg, for
On 2016-01-14 22:18, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
> I tried to strike a balance between doing the right thing (and produce a
> huge unintelligible overkill) and getting something acceptable done.
Yeah, I think this was a good change on its own as it'll make the
problem far less likely (though of
Great that this made it so far.
Am 14.01.2016 um 20:20 schrieb Peter Bex:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:59:28AM +1300, Evan Hanson wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Attached is a signed-off copy of this patch, with some of the info in
>> the comments moved into the commit message.
Actually I'm slightly
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:59:28AM +1300, Evan Hanson wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Attached is a signed-off copy of this patch, with some of the info in
> the comments moved into the commit message. It won't change anything in
> the normal, single-threaded case, and it can only improve behaviour in
>
;-)
as promised:
Am 02.12.2015 um 14:57 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
> No more patches today. This again is no good
> because it allocates a slot in pending_interrupts, but doesn't - and
> can't deallocate it.
No more patches yesterday. This one sustained the test to sleep one
night over it.
Am 03.12.2015 um 14:01 schrieb John Cowan:
> Jörg F. Wittenberger scripsit:
>
>> One more question. I would have expected chicken to store signals
>> received while C_interrupts_enabled==0 and deliver them at some point
>> after C_interrupts_enabled becomes true. Why are those signals ignored?
Jörg F. Wittenberger scripsit:
> One more question. I would have expected chicken to store signals
> received while C_interrupts_enabled==0 and deliver them at some point
> after C_interrupts_enabled becomes true. Why are those signals ignored?
That's what signal blocking is supposed to be
Hi all,
I guess I must apologize for first posting an almost good patch and then
once I found this cut error, I became confused and made a mess out
of it.
Am 30.11.2015 um 12:44 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
> Am 29.11.2015 um 17:55 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
>> Am 26.11.2015 um 11:29 schrieb
Sadly there is always room to make things better.
The last version would require the conditional expression to be atomic,
not only the ++ operator.
Better we reset the signal counter to it's maximum if it went over the
fence during increment. Version attached.
Am 02.12.2015 um 13:52 schrieb
Argh, this is still no good.
Now the pending_interrupts_count will grow beyond bounds.
Use the attached version instead.
Sorry.
/Jörg
Am 02.12.2015 um 13:28 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
> Hi all,
>
> I guess I must apologize for first posting an almost good patch and then
> once I found
I don't believe it. No more patches today. This again is no good
because it allocates a slot in pending_interrupts, but doesn't - and
can't deallocate it. Maybe tracking saved_stack_limit as in my second
patch is actually the simpler change.
Am 02.12.2015 um 14:05 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
Attached a better version.
Am 30.11.2015 um 12:44 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
> Am 29.11.2015 um 17:55 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
>> Am 26.11.2015 um 11:29 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
>> The signal handler in the other thread will happily set the global
>> variable C_stack_limit to point
Am 29.11.2015 um 17:55 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
> Am 26.11.2015 um 11:29 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
> The signal handler in the other thread will happily set the global
> variable C_stack_limit to point 1000 word off the stack pointer at the
> other thread.
Perhaps the attached patch is
Wait, this patch has a bug. Sorry.
Am 30.11.2015 um 12:44 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
> Am 29.11.2015 um 17:55 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
>> Am 26.11.2015 um 11:29 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
>> The signal handler in the other thread will happily set the global
>> variable C_stack_limit
17 matches
Mail list logo
