Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com From: "Gary R. Van Sickle" To: Subject: RE: quandary with pthreads Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 03:15:01 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20021212164838.GG10952@redhat.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 You're welcome. -- Gary R. Van Sickle Brewer. Patriot. > On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 05:38:50PM +0100, Thomas Pfaff wrote: > > > > > >On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 01:37:37AM -0600, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: > >> >Ok, attached is what I'd try if I was set up to try it. I've > found that you > >> >pretty much always need the "volatile" after the __asm__, or the > newer gccs want > >> >to optimize your assembly away, even if they should be able to > tell that you've > >> >got side-effects. > >> > >> AFAIK, there is a volatile after the __asm__. > >> > >> How about a standard unified diff so that it is easy to see what > you changed? > > > >I didn't specified it when i put the asm stuff it into a c source file. > >You might have a look at the version that i created. > > > >AFAICT the only changes between Garys inline asm version and mine is the > >addition of the missing volatile. > >Anyway, i have attached a diff. > > Sigh. So, to clarify, I had a version of things which you admitted > worked when you changed them from inline. You indicated that you'd just > taken my versions and adapted them. My versions used volatile, yours > didn't. > > Then Gary offered to help. I pointed him at my versions. Instead, I > infer, he looked at your versions and noticed that volatile was missing. > And, voila, adding volatile fixed the problem. > > Nope. I'm not going to look at this. One or both of you need to > clarify what is going on here. Sending a diff where nearly every line > is changed (thanks to gratuitous formatting difference?) is not a help. > > I certainly appreciate the effort involved in tracking down the problem. > I would appreciate a little more effort in showing what the problem > actually was. > > cgf >