Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<046a01c22449$5f637000$6132bc3e@BABEL>
From:	"Conrad Scott" <Conrad DOT Scott AT dsl DOT pipex DOT com>
To:	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<200207051859 DOT 43753 DOT maksik AT gmx DOT co DOT uk>
Subject:	Re: Re: problems with pthreads && c++ (suspect wait conditions)
Date:	Fri, 5 Jul 2002 18:28:26 +0100
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000

"Max Zaitsev" <maksik AT gmx DOT co DOT uk> wrote:
> It would be nice if somebody at cygwin would document
> such a behavior of gcc, that is even if one don't have
> any try-catch blocks one still have to use
> -fno-exceptions to forbid them completeli kind of...

Another thing that I only realised recently, is that the new and
delete operators are not thread-safe in the current cygwin / gcc
world.  You have to push things pretty hard to trip over it, but
there is a problem there.  For what I'm working on (cygserver), I
ripped out all the new/deletes and used malloc/free with placement
new and explicit destructor calls.  Ugly but it works (not that
that's a recommedation).

Earnie Boyd suggested -D__USE_MALLOC, as discussed recently on the
mingw-users list, but I've not got around to investigating that as
yet.

HTH,

// Conrad




--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -