Bugs item #1234979, was opened at 2005-07-08 17:25 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by cperkins You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1234979&group_id=5470
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: Threads Group: Python 2.4 Status: Closed Resolution: Fixed Priority: 5 Submitted By: Chris Perkins (cperkins) Assigned to: Reinhold Birkenfeld (birkenfeld) Summary: Lock.acquire treats only 1 as True Initial Comment: Lock.acquire takes an argument indicating whether or not to block. On Windows, an argument of 1 (or True) is treated as True, and any other number is treated as False. The problem is in PyThread_acquire_lock, in thread_nt.h. Although I haven't tried it on any other platform, looking at a random sample (thread_pthread.h and thread_solaris.h), it looks to me like other platforms do it right. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Chris Perkins (cperkins) Date: 2005-07-09 10:43 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1142368 It looks like thread_wince.h suffers from the same problem. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Reinhold Birkenfeld (birkenfeld) Date: 2005-07-08 18:26 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1188172 Okay. Committed as Python/thread_nt.h r2.23.10.1, r2.24. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Tim Peters (tim_one) Date: 2005-07-08 18:10 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=31435 birkenfeld, yes we should: lock.acquire(waitflag) has been documented for more than a decade as treating any non-zero value as true, so this is a clear bug in thread_nt.h -- if someone was, e.g., relying on lock.acquire(2) acting like lock.acquire(0) on Windows, tough luck for them. I'd even include this patch in a bugfix release, since the current meaning of lock.acquire(2) varies across platforms because of this bug, and that's a potentially serious problem. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Reinhold Birkenfeld (birkenfeld) Date: 2005-07-08 17:59 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1188172 Attaching a patch fixing that. Of course, the change is slightly backwards-incompatible, so should we do that? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1234979&group_id=5470 _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
