On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 08:33, Christophe Galerne wrote:
> This > www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xsh/pthread_mutexattr_settype.html > seems to explain that a PT_MUTEX_NORMAL mutex should behave the way Chris > expect. NB: PT_MUTEX_NORMAL is not a posix mutex type - it's PTHREAD_MUTEX_NORMAL.... And yes, 'NORMAL' mutexs deadlock on relocking attempts. Thomas Pfaff is currently updating the cygwin mutex support - it would be great to get some user feedback on his patches, and they support PTHREAD_MUTEX_NORMAL mutex's. > > We don't support NONRECURSIVE mutex's. I don't know what you mean by > > NORECURSIVE threads. > > Then maybe one should add a comment above > pthread.h(55): #define PTHREAD_MUTEX_NORMAL 2 > that this option is not supported. Or you could check the return value from pthread_mutexattr_settype and see that it returns EINVAL. > Also above > pthread.h(57): #define PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER (void *)20 > a comment that says that a default MUTEX will be recursive > might avoid some surprise. =:-D Look at pthread.h:53 and pthread.h:58. DEFAULT is mapped to RECURSIVE as per the 1003.1 options 'an implementation may map this mutex to one of the other mutex types'. Thus my initial comment: ASSUMING that PTHREAD_MUTEX_DEFAULT == PTHREAD_MUTEX_NORMAL is broken code. Rob -- --- GPG key available at: http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt. ---
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
