Am 31.12.2015 um 12:32 schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger: > I do understand that there may be some fear that fixing the bug could > cause some existing (though buggy) chicken code to break, just because > this hypothetical code would rely on the bug canceling out the bug in > the other code. However I don't think such could exist! Because it may > be hard to deterministically rely on the bug's existence: The > precondition would be 1.) that the mutex involved is _always_ in > contention when the second mutex-lock! is attempted, thus the locking > thread has to wait 2.) as long as the second thread taking the lock does > not terminate, it's only a memory leak 3.) all code not using > mutex-lock! with the third argument being #f is always safe.
Forgot: 4.) [actually 3. with 3. becoming 4.] The hypothetical code relying on bugs canceling each other out must furthermore rely on the fact that the mutex is now no longer usable and an abandoned-mutex-exception will protect the section from being re-entered. Again, note that this section will not be protected by this exception when the mutex was found in unlocked state in step 1. > > > > So please consider to apply this (probably to master at least, though > *I* would actually recommend it for _stability_, but I understand as per > paragraph above, that just you may object here) it is really a road block. > > Thanks you sooo much! > > /Jörg > > _______________________________________________ > Chicken-hackers mailing list > Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers > _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
