2009/3/5 Neil Jerram :
> Linas Vepstas writes:
>
>> I don't understand the patch.
>>
>> libguile/scmsigs.c has a SCM_CRITICAL_SECTION_START
>> at line 339, which seems to be balanced by
>> SCM_CRITICAL_SECTION_END;
>> at lines 442 and 461, right before the return from
>> the subroutine.
>>
>> So w
Hello Neil,
Thanks for the patches and tests!
Ludo'.
Linas Vepstas writes:
> I don't understand the patch.
>
> libguile/scmsigs.c has a SCM_CRITICAL_SECTION_START
> at line 339, which seems to be balanced by
> SCM_CRITICAL_SECTION_END;
> at lines 442 and 461, right before the return from
> the subroutine.
>
> So why insert this seemingly un-needed
2009/3/5 Neil Jerram :
>> Yes, it's an unrelated bug. All of the places that raise errors (and
>> so exit non-locally) should exit the critical section first.
>
>> You're absolutely right. I'll leave this part out, and generate a
>> separate patch for it.
>
> Here's the separate patch...
Err, OK
Linas Vepstas writes:
> 2009/3/5 Neil Jerram :
>>> Yes, it's an unrelated bug. All of the places that raise errors (and
>>> so exit non-locally) should exit the critical section first.
>>
>>> You're absolutely right. I'll leave this part out, and generate a
>>> separate patch for it.
>>
>> Here
Greg Troxel writes:
> Does that sound sensible; have I missed anything?
>
> Also run tests on other than Linux, with as many different OS threading
> implementations as possible. For all systems, set the threading
> libraries to the most restrictive settings, specifically aborting on any
> beh
2009/3/5 Neil Jerram :
>> Yes, it's an unrelated bug. All of the places that raise errors (and
>> so exit non-locally) should exit the critical section first.
>
>> You're absolutely right. I'll leave this part out, and generate a
>> separate patch for it.
>
> Here's the separate patch...
Looks g
Neil Jerram writes:
> Yes, it's an unrelated bug. All of the places that raise errors (and
> so exit non-locally) should exit the critical section first.
> You're absolutely right. I'll leave this part out, and generate a
> separate patch for it.
Here's the separate patch...
Neil
>Fr
Linas Vepstas writes:
> I skimmed it quickly, looks reasonable,
Thanks for reviewing!
> except for this:
>
>else
> - SCM_OUT_OF_RANGE (2, handler);
> + {
> + SCM_CRITICAL_SECTION_END;
> + SCM_OUT_OF_RANGE (2, handler);
> + }
>
> The matching SCM_CRITICA
