X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:32:37 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Use of Dual Core causes random failures building OpenJDK Message-ID: <20091120143237.GD18289@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <4B023172 DOT 5000102 AT a11ysoft DOT com> <4B0611DC DOT 3080002 AT a11ysoft DOT com> <4B061709 DOT 2040507 AT cygwin DOT com> <20091120112052 DOT GT29173 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091120112052.GT29173@calimero.vinschen.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:20:52PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >On Nov 20 06:04, mike marchywka wrote: >> On 11/19/09, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: >>>Wow! I had a hunch that BLODA could be the cause of the file related >>>problems but it never occurred to me that it could be screwing up >>>environment variables too. >> >>Anyone care to determine if env updates are not thread safe? > >It's indeed not thread safe. Looks like we need some locking... What's "it" in this case? putenv? The putenv() function is not required to be reentrant, and the one in libc4, libc5 and glibc 2.0 is not, but the glibc 2.1 version is I agree that it would be nice to make it safer but is there really code here which is updating the environment in separate threads? cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple