This is the mail archive of the
glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
[Bug nptl/13165] pthread_cond_wait() can consume a signal that was sent before it started waiting
- From: "triegel at redhat dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>
- To: glibc-bugs at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 15:44:30 +0000
- Subject: [Bug nptl/13165] pthread_cond_wait() can consume a signal that was sent before it started waiting
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-13165-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13165
--- Comment #32 from Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com> 2012-09-21 15:44:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #28)
> (In reply to comment #27)
> > I disagree strongly that the spec even allows Torvald's interpretation.
> > Torvald's claim is essentially that an implementation can consider an
> > unspecified set of threads beyond those which "have blocked" per the
> > specification of pthread_cond_wait to also "have blocked" on the condition.
>
> Yes, that's what he claims.
Not quite, as I point out in comment #30.
> Anyway, this whole dispute has been reduced to the question of which threads
> are eligible for wakeup, so I've taken the liberty to post a clarification
> request to the Austin Group, asking them to add explicit text explaining which
> threads should be considered blocked with respect to a pthread_cond_signal()
> call. The clarification request is at
> http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=609. Torvald, please correct me if have
> inadvertently misrepresented your position.
Thanks. I have added a note there that summarizes the interpretation that the
current implementation is based on. Let's see what they think about this
issue.
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.