Mon Oct 25 22:02:22 GMT 2021
On 10/25/2021 5:29 PM, Mark Geisert wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Oct 25 08:35, Ken Brown wrote:
>>> On 10/25/2021 4:59 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>> Has the thread already been started at this point?
>>> Yes, here's the backtrace of that thread:
>>> Thread 5 (Thread 9692.0x7c4c):
>>> #0 0x00000001801934f9 in sys_alloc (m=0x18036f860 <_gm_>, nb=1040) at
>>> #1 0x0000000180196b96 in dlmalloc (bytes=1024) at
>>> #2 0x00000001801993e1 in dlrealloc (oldmem=0x0, bytes=1024) at
>>> #3 0x00000001800e8eed in realloc (p=0x0, size=1024) at
>> Er... huh? So both threads are in a malloc function? This shouldn't
>> have happened, given the clunky muto guarding malloc calls. This is
>> really strange. Why's the muto not working here?
> Is it possible both threads have executed malloc_init()?
> If so, the second one would reinit the muto.
Or does the fifo_reader thread call a malloc function before the main thread has
called malloc_init()? This would presumably cause __malloc_lock() to fail, but
there's no error check.
More information about the Cygwin-developers