Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2001/09/11/12:37:28
Rob,
On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 11:56:30PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Tue, 2001-09-11 at 23:44, Norman Vine wrote:
> I put that sanity check in there because I suspected we'd find many
> broken programs, and I'm not happy to see that I was right. It's easy
> enough to make cygwin not care - we just zero out the relevant fields
> and make the mutex's and cond variables act as though they had just had
> mutex_init called on them. After all, we already lose the mutex owner
> data.
>
> > Let me know what else I can do to help.
>
> If you're willing, I can send you a patch to make cygwin ignore that
> error with no in-cygwin side effects.. or you can fix Python :].
With the attach "ugly" patch, Python passes all regression tests (except
for the unrelated test_strftime) again. Specifically, test_fork1 passes
with the occasional warnings:
test_fork1
*** Forked() while a mutex has condition variables waiting on it.
Report to cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
*** Forked() while a condition variable has waiting threads.
Report to cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
What is the best way to print out warning messages from the DLL? If
that aspect is cleaned up, then I would change my characterization from
"ugly" to "reasonable."
My strategy is to change Cygwin (at least temporarily) to warn instead
of abort. And, then go to the python-dev list and attempt to fight that
battle. Do you concur?
Thanks,
Jason
- Raw text -