On Tue, 2002-05-14 at 18:04, Michael Meeks wrote: > Hi Michael, > > On Tue, 2002-05-14 at 01:26, Not Zed wrote: > > They wont be able to do anythign about it anyway, so it doesn't matter. > > If they care enough they can use gdb manually. > > It's not possible to attach gdb to a process that lives for only a few > handfuls of milliseconds, and dies without giving a user visible > message. Bug buddy would help to get this error handled, that is unless > you know something I don't.
gdb program-name > > > b) It looks like a CORBA method is being called from a > > > class_init method, this has caused some serious grief in > > > Gnome 2.0, where re-enterancy is more likely due to a lot > > > less blocking going on. > > > > So you're saying the reentrancy problem isn't addressed and has gotten > > worse? > > I'm saying that there are no more places where re-enterancy is > theoreticaly possible, simply that it seems that fewer of these > re-entered in Gnome 1.4 - for reasons unexplained. We really ought to > add a 'manic re-entrancy' mode, where it attempts to allow methods to > re-enter as much as possible for testing I suppose - fairly easy to do. > > ORBit2 does a lot less blocking, which gives better performance, but > yes - one consequence of handling more CORBA calls more quickly is that > you get more re-enterancy. > > > What a total nightmare. > > Well - since evolution will be porting to Gnome 2.1, I have a couple of > somewhat trivial ideas to help your re-enterancy problems ( and cut a > swathe of code out of evolution ) that we can get into the platform in > that timescale. My re-entrancy 'fix' is also also rather simple, so I'll > explain it to you: [ thanks for provoking me into sharing this, since > I'm supposed to write a formal proposal or somesuch and havn't got round > to it ]: > > For each corba method we add an IDL [or other] annotation that > describes the method behavior and (re-)ordering constraints. Thus: > > + oneway foo (in string baa) [ handle_at_idle, no_re_enter ]; > > Or perhaps - for people who like blocking: > > + string getMyName () [ no_re_enter ] > > Thus people can invoke methods, no re-entrancy will occur on that > method invoke, and we can queue methods execution until idle. It's > really quite easy to do in the ORB - but needs some IDL extensions / > poking. Possibly some evil #pragma or something. Then we are at least at > the X level - where incoming events are processed in an idle loop, and > outgoing events don't re-enter [ but of course can do if we think we can > cope with writing some re-entrancy safe code ]. > > How does that sound ? Honestly - like a big hack. But, given the nature of orbit, i dont see any other solution, since nobody wants to use threads. _______________________________________________ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
