sem_init() fails (when used in a certain way)

Corinna Vinschen corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com
Wed Mar 30 20:42:00 GMT 2011


On Mar 30 16:34, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 01:36:18PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> >On 03/30/2011 08:31 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> So we could not add myfault handler's *and* remove the is_good_object
> >> tests everywhere and we would still be on the safe side of Linux and
> >> POSIX, right?  That would perhaps speed up extensive usage of the
> >> pthread functions noticably.
> >
> >Yes - see the text under
> >http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/pthread_mutex_init.html.
> > The RATIONALE is quite clear that error checking is possible (and if
> >done, what errno values should be used), but that the implementation is
> >free to trade less error checking for faster operation.  The only
> >mandatory errors are for things like ENOMEM or EAGAIN when there are not
> >enough resources available, and not for EBUSY for re-initializing an
> >already-initialized object or EINVAL for destroying an uninitialized
> >object.  And the change history under ISSUE 7 lists EINVAL and EBUSY
> >being removed as required errors as part of POSIX 2008.
> >
> >Of course, removing all handlers means that buggy programs that used to
> >get EFAULT and now get segfaults are more likely to blame cygwin, but
> >that's not a new problem.
> 
> I don't know.  Do we want to make some part of Cygwin faster?  I wouldn't
> want to spoil anyone.

I can't imagine anybody thinking Cygwin is slow...


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat



More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list