X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:49:06 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Use of Dual Core causes random failures building OpenJDK Message-ID: <20091120184906.GA27241@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> <20091120143237 DOT GD18289 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <20091120144958 DOT GW29173 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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 01:19:57PM -0500, mike marchywka wrote: >On 11/20/09, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> On Nov 20 09:32, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>> 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? >> >> "it" is primarily _addenv, which is used by setenv and 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 >> >> Same for setenv and unsetenv, which don't need to be thread-safe per >> POSIX. glibc's setenv is thread-safe, though. >> >>> 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? >> >> And given POSIX, if so, it would be an application bug if the application >> doesn't care by itself to use setenv/getenv in a thread-safe manner. > >Why does the OS let this happen? I thought windoze should avoid >garbage. Er, I think you're a little confused about what we're talking about. The OS doesn't enforce thread safety. There's really no way that it can. 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