On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 01:09:21PM -0700, Peter Rehley wrote: >My tests indicated that the changes are working correctly.
You did try the snapshot, right? I neglected to mention that I had to make some corresponding changes to the DLL beyond the below changes. I don't know exactly when I did that. I made the below changes on 6/9 but I made more changes on 6/11. So, any snapshot since that time would have these changes. >On Jun 30, 2005, at 8:23 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>We're coming close to a 1.5.18 release. Please try the latest snapshot >>at http://cygwin.com/snapshots/ and help verify that there are no >>regresions against 1.5.17. >> >>I'm particularly interested in hearing if the changes made (at users's >>requests) to the default mutex handling in pthread.h are working >>correctly. Specifically, does this: >> >>Index: include/pthread.h >>=================================================================== >>RCS file: /cvs/uberbaum/winsup/cygwin/include/pthread.h,v >>retrieving revision 1.21 >>retrieving revision 1.23 >>diff -u -d -1 -r1.21 -r1.23 >>--- include/pthread.h 2 May 2005 03:50:09 -0000 1.21 >>+++ include/pthread.h 11 Jun 2005 04:56:36 -0000 1.23 >>@@ -55,3 +55,3 @@ >> #define PTHREAD_MUTEX_NORMAL 2 >>-#define PTHREAD_MUTEX_DEFAULT PTHREAD_MUTEX_ERRORCHECK >>+#define PTHREAD_MUTEX_DEFAULT PTHREAD_MUTEX_NORMAL >> /* this should be too low to ever be a valid address */ >> >>do what was requested? This simple change required a lot of changes in >>the cygwin test suite so I'm not entirely convinced that it was a good >>thing yet. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
