Hi
yup.. +1 from me
in fact looking at our code i see i have patched this and forgotten to post..
nisan
At 03:24 PM 8/9/02 +0200, Stipe Tolj wrote:
>I have done some debug testing with the 'valgrind' that Kalle
>suggested and came accross some points:
>
>==29137==
>==29137== 411 errors in context 2 of 2:
>==29137== pthread_mutex_destroy: mutex is still in use
>==29137== at 0x4029FB7F: pthread_error (vg_libpthread.c:231)
>==29137== by 0x402A0A18: __pthread_mutex_destroy
>(vg_libpthread.c:848)
>==29137== by 0x808C8ED: mutex_destroy (gwlib/thread.c:55)
>==29137== by 0x808676E: list_destroy (gwlib/list.c:97)
>
>which refers to the code in gwlib/list.c:
>
>void list_destroy(List *list, list_item_destructor_t *destructor)
>{
> void *item;
>
> if (list == NULL)
> return;
>
> if (destructor != NULL) {
> while ((item = list_extract_first(list)) != NULL)
> destructor(item);
> }
>
> mutex_lock(list->permanent_lock); <------
> mutex_destroy(list->permanent_lock);
> mutex_destroy(list->single_operation_lock);
> pthread_cond_destroy(&list->nonempty);
> gw_free(list->tab);
> gw_free(list);
>}
>
>I guess we should not lock a mutex that is then destroyed, right?!
>
>Stipe
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Wapme Systems AG
>
>Vogelsanger Weg 80
>40470 Düsseldorf
>
>Tel: +49-211-74845-0
>Fax: +49-211-74845-299
>
>E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>wapme.net - wherever you are
