X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6D2E93858415 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com; s=default; t=1706126948; bh=CcRGRdYBLugOvsYfNqd1Qk6XITv7wMo2XKeBElYIUsA=; h=Date:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=LgglWYfB8I81yVCk7CYAk8ZY8MQDtCQBdILY7LKqWE+ffgMNwnZsswyN9DHtkWdYY kFu1apneN3cMa+nrFxPAEfqnGoeUBtquDfUAqxecMTkXa2flKd+xYGczm9JPra0nNk kafv7SH0Xu94pkm7dW8HMdRjdbzf7PuNEv2S/NjU= X-Original-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org A02243858D28 ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org A02243858D28 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1706126927; cv=none; b=qudFhBixVJfyFvXXyeL+VKKLCDdLE3jgCcwzdh8voebN2Ulzav0ggdJW5CdBaqev+JN6xdShMFAoqCZKzapsNvo8dAyWhNcbndbbpsB9cJU8X61wYPYwsNqnSV+QQPTyP3PYVyqa5qvKgKlIbYYFMyx8GRxZgeci0FWV7vmUHQ4= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1706126927; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OTDeO3NEx68d/i2Jy+OWn8l2jEbHh1DnBRNaBHvn7tI=; h=DKIM-Signature:MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID; b=cKXMrVHD5NKjmX+KNSC7iRwsQz7l7aWkgqUr5BQTkXkbzC9fUoin1B3GTRS04Ty+6IR7hVHsxWcobatB9/DeNOKJMkNcuD04YuWm7+Ub8EKlkynaQc7XD6HKK//MqZCKXSuEyQ3H4xSiMhZc9skWLihgp2RnlRii0sYgWBlT3PI= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=Lo2Bd1Rc c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=65b16e4d a=pMSlDXUwMa7SJ1EIez8PdQ==:117 a=pMSlDXUwMa7SJ1EIez8PdQ==:17 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=dEuoMetlWLkA:10 a=uZvujYp8AAAA:8 a=lN_5w-FhJtvjiqjs_CYA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=BvJ6B6o88AUA:10 a=SLzB8X_8jTLwj6mN0q5r:22 MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 12:08:42 -0800 To: Takashi Yano Cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Possiblly bug of cygwin1.dll In-Reply-To: <20240124205514.eaaa7162e3e858cbb39f5801@nifty.ne.jp> References: <20240119224436 DOT 876a055f356f7c6796bc725b AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp> <20240120131825 DOT 4157c259fe058155137d6fe0 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp> <20240124205514 DOT eaaa7162e3e858cbb39f5801 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp> User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.15 Message-ID: <69bed0a96ffea6cefae1b95d1c9f67a7@kylheku.com> X-Sender: kaz AT kylheku DOT com X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4xfMX7QtNeoc1W15sbK6U2YZOA2/53f4kEIZuxzQE4FrCqAoRuuylaAZu2xtqXPvvY2h70/oJ/BXVALy+6nL0DjKGT0SIhPdjLrdTUQoVfD4QYW9xgc+tT oozJMVt20ocLf2tnv24YVWRqNZWy2F8Nz4SpWWy622aN1L5Pg2pff6vn3LjKh3YxZrHHQ1qcBCea0vdiA5jXc4LRNpdFqGHdcAc= X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_EF, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_NONE, 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: Kaz Kylheku via Cygwin Reply-To: Kaz Kylheku 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 2024-01-24 03:55, Takashi Yano via Cygwin wrote: > Are there any code examples that use PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER > with pthread_mutex_destroy()? I don't think I've seen one. I think they are rare in the field, precisely because PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER is mainly used in C code to "initialize and forget" global mutexes, so they are ready before the first thread is every created (and before main is even called). Nobody cares about destruction of global mutexes in an executable (not shared library). >> Use of the initializer is not restricted to static objects >> by any normative wording. > > It seems that I had read the older POSIX document. > > https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904875/functions/pthread_mutex_destroy.html Aha! OK! Because I had a memory of there had been something about a static restriction. I took it for granted you were right about that, and was looking at that for other reasons. So, good, that is gone. It never made sense anyway. Pairing the initializer with the destructor call can be done in all situations now. -- 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