But isn't it expensive?
On Dec 13, 2007 11:01 AM, Julian Seward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 13 December 2007 08:44, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > The same false positive appears when mixing mutexes and semaphores. Test
> > attached.
> > As with cond vars, we are able to transition Excl(T1)->Excl(T2), but can
> > not do ShM(T1,T2)->Excl(T2).
> >
> > As I understand, fixing this properly will require storing SegmentID in
> all
> > shadow words, not only in those that are in Exclusive state.
> > This will hardly squeeze into 32 bits though, need 64... :(
>
> No, I don't think so. We just need to do the same memory ownership
> transition for semaphores that the "cvhack" patch does for CVs. I'll
> extend the current patch.
>
> J
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services
for just about anything Open Source.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace
_______________________________________________
Valgrind-developers mailing list
Valgrind-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-developers
