X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 3DA563858C2F DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com; s=default; t=1705922192; bh=srH9HLIWuo+EPWP/J3ueABTCd/NY3P6LVbDlnyDJmgQ=; h=Date:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To: From; b=t7FcNZoBd0kgg+81IRgbNr8Ik7os2HIk67elKbBLvRUsPaWVpN1twtncTBtiF0JDc iv4qa2FNMlpRMvCPFlkoi4dAytZ9uu8SQPWV/9yz+9XBUfdOfn2Dkz0tKwOFRFzT/T 62RpzzKkft29sm4m/sFl3OHjvODbcpW6BFdX7Frg= X-Original-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 54D993858D20 ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 54D993858D20 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1705922167; cv=none; b=PsMERVg2wLD0yFhfa3qip4TEhiR3dUQukmkbAkmYPQTU1iAahVMgfJectP7k2hta1fNTAKA8qIXRp9zgnV2mm4VPGSyHzchef9k/7jwcG3AEHTIFGFK2zDrgKHNKPUVl1n5tS8ckbhVu3Htvwt6ZoYCzdilM6EGqent8Qi0XZqM= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1705922167; c=relaxed/simple; bh=WZMargytj5pWkyxQjfGNvu2h7X/v7gaWFO5zqtvkxlo=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Mime-Version; b=L2w+yyIwy8F9ClVCYZRSfe1gNV21tbkIk2jIMuLZIRJ3TksKFxysot0c3s2SN2B4O/NKVW3mKe1WxW8cKuw45nrMd/IwLWc7mniNyZHfvQfzSw5csMzImiU0ovXVYXk81OM1ZTl15UM6gFm87NW0QKEiN202UAauy+dBpSRlk24= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2024 20:16:02 +0900 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Possiblly bug of cygwin1.dll Message-Id: <20240122201602.0a172f5965821f6e8d6afb96@nifty.ne.jp> In-Reply-To: References: <20240119224436 DOT 876a055f356f7c6796bc725b AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp> <20240120131825 DOT 4157c259fe058155137d6fe0 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp> <20240120141349 DOT cde31e62177a0405b0ee9934 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp> <87v87ov03x DOT fsf AT Gerda DOT invalid> <20240120212427 DOT 1e69fd3655ece73ecd508def AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp> <20240121201051 DOT 795a4405576a97ab8729e273 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp> <87fryqizl3.fsf@> <20240122123023 DOT b8eaac0e50d1e8856f44a115 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.30; i686-pc-mingw32) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, GIT_PATCH_0, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: General Cygwin discussions and problem reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Takashi Yano via Cygwin Reply-To: Takashi Yano Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com Sender: "Cygwin" On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:57:48 +0100 Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Jan 22 10:25, Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin wrote: > > On Jan 22 12:30, Takashi Yano via Cygwin wrote: > > > PATCH2: (for cygwin) > > > Avoid handle leak caused when non-static pthread_once_t is initialized > > > with PTHREAD_ONCE_INIT > > > diff --git a/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc b/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc > > > index 7bb4f9fc8..127569160 100644 > > > --- a/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc > > > +++ b/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc > > > @@ -2060,6 +2060,9 @@ pthread::once (pthread_once_t *once_control, void (*init_routine) (void)) > > > { > > > init_routine (); > > > once_control->state = 1; > > > + pthread_mutex_unlock (&once_control->mutex); > > > + while (pthread_mutex_destroy (&once_control->mutex) == EBUSY); > > > + return 0; > > > } > > > /* Here we must remove our cancellation handler */ > > > pthread_mutex_unlock (&once_control->mutex); > > > > I see what you're doing here. Wouldn't it be simpler, though, to do this? > > > > diff --git a/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc b/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc > > index 7bb4f9fc8341..7ec3aace395d 100644 > > --- a/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc > > +++ b/winsup/cygwin/thread.cc > > @@ -2063,6 +2063,7 @@ pthread::once (pthread_once_t *once_control, void (*init_routine) (void)) > > } > > /* Here we must remove our cancellation handler */ > > Strange enough, this comment accompanies the code since its inception > in 2001. It says explicitly "remove" the cancellation handler. > That sounds like the idea was right, just the programmer forgot about > it afterwards... I am not sure what 'cancellation handler' means here. Is it the event handler in pthread_mutex_t? -- Takashi Yano -- Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: https://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: https://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple