Carlos O'Donell wrote: > On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Julien Danjou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Is there anything from an outsider that could help? > > I've seen this on-and-off again on the hppa-linux port. The issue has, > in my experience, been a compiler problem. My standard operating > procedure is to methodically add volatile to the atomic.h operations > until it goes away, and then work out the compiler mis-optimization. > > The bug is almost always a situation where the lll_unlock is scheduled > before owner = 0, and the assert catches the race condition where you > unlock but have not yet cleared the owner.
Are you sure this is a compiler problem? Unless you use explicit atomic memory accesses or volatile the compiler is supposed to re-order memory access. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. Andrew. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
