On Mar 3 23:39, Takashi Yano wrote: > On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 14:01:08 +0100 > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > but now that I'm writing it I'm even more unsure this is necessary. > > The only two places doing an And and an Or are doing it with the > > exact same flags. And the combination of PID_ACTIVE and the other > > three flags is never tested together. > > > > What do you think? > > No other code touches these flags except for: > > diff --git a/winsup/cygwin/sigproc.cc b/winsup/cygwin/sigproc.cc > index 1ffe00a94..8739f18f5 100644 > --- a/winsup/cygwin/sigproc.cc > +++ b/winsup/cygwin/sigproc.cc > @@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ proc_subproc (DWORD what, uintptr_t val) > vchild->sid = myself->sid; > vchild->ctty = myself->ctty; > vchild->cygstarted = true; > - vchild->process_state |= PID_INITIALIZING; > + InterlockedOr ((LONG *)&vchild->process_state, PID_INITIALIZING); > vchild->ppid = myself->pid; /* always set last */ > } > break; > > Moreover, using InterlockedOr()/InterlockedAnd() can ensure that > the other flags than the current code is modifying will be kept > during modification. So using InterlockedCompareExchange() might > be over the top.
Okidoki! > > Either way, I would add a volatile to _pinfo::process_state. > > Thanks. I will. Great. Feel free to push the patch without sending another patch submission to cygwin-patches. Thanks, Corinna
