On May 21 12:26, Otto Meta wrote: > > You should always try the most recent http://cygwin.com/snapshots. > > Thanks for the suggestion, that did indeed change something: The tests > yield the same half-broken behaviour for pthread_cancel as with 1.7.7 > and 1.7.9. That’s better than the almost completely broken behaviour > from 1.7.12-1 to 1.7.15-1. pthread_kill is still as unreliable as in > 1.7.12-1 and newer, though. > > Results with cygwin1-20120517.dll: > > Test 1: > Blocking on semaphore: Works > Blocking on pause(): Works > Blocking on read(): Not deterministic: One thread is killed, the other > two stay > > Test 2: > Independent of what the threads are blocked on, nothing is cancelled. > > Test 3: > Blocking on semaphore: May or may not signal the correct thread. > Blocking on pause(): Same as semaphore. > Blocking on read(): One thread executes the signal handler, the other > two don't. Thread chosen seemingly at random. > > Test 4: > Not deterministic: Targeted thread either executes the signal handler > every time or not at all. > > Test 5: > Not deterministic: Threads may or may not exit after being poked. > > Test 6: > Not deterministic: Threads may or may not exit after being poked. > > In short: > - Deferred pthread_cancel seems to work. > - Asynchronous pthtread_cancel seems to have no effect. > - pthread_kill is basically hit or miss.
Would you mind to provide *simple* testcases to allow easy debugging of your observations? Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple