[Bug libstdc++/29426] [4.2 Regression] static __recursive_mutex init vs __GTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION
--- Comment #14 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-31 09:42 --- Eric, it looks like you've got this fixed now: great news. Solaris test results for 2.10, 2.9, and 2.8 looked fine for the last month and a half, so I'd assumed this patch was not problematic. As a side note, it's hard to deal with paging in and out WRT this bug report over two months. If we're supposed to care about Solaris-2.5-7, then please, post test results on a (at least) weekly basis. -benjamin -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29426
[Bug libstdc++/29426] [4.2 Regression] static __recursive_mutex init vs __GTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION
--- Comment #15 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-31 11:16 --- Eric, it looks like you've got this fixed now: great news. Solaris test results for 2.10, 2.9, and 2.8 looked fine for the last month and a half, so I'd assumed this patch was not problematic. I think it is, up to Solaris 9, but the failure mode is not so blatant. As a side note, it's hard to deal with paging in and out WRT this bug report over two months. If we're supposed to care about Solaris-2.5-7, then please, post test results on a (at least) weekly basis. I'd say that we (the GCC project) have to care about Solaris 7 and up only, at this point. I'm personally interested in Solaris 2.5.1 and 2.6 for some reasons, but I will certainly not bug anyone about them. And, yes, I try to post results on a weekly basis for all Solaris versions: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-10/msg01176.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-10/msg01177.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-10/msg01178.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-10/msg01179.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-10/msg01180.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-10/msg01181.html I don't have any for recent mainline though, but you probably have already guessed why. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29426
[Bug libstdc++/29426] [4.2 Regression] static __recursive_mutex init vs __GTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION
--- Comment #13 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-27 13:31 --- Benjamin's patch totally broke the C++ compiler on Solaris 2.6 and probably damaged it on Solaris 7, 8 and 9 too. This is again PR target/24071. At least I now have a strong incentive to tackle the problem. :-) -- ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot ||org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29426
[Bug libstdc++/29426] [4.2 Regression] static __recursive_mutex init vs __GTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION
--- Comment #1 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 07:55 --- Mine. -- bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org |dot org | Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2006-10-11 07:55:17 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29426
[Bug libstdc++/29426] [4.2 Regression] static __recursive_mutex init vs __GTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION
--- Comment #2 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 07:56 --- Note we don't actually know if this is a regression, as without the stricter error checking that is now present this may not be failing. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29426
[Bug libstdc++/29426] [4.2 Regression] static __recursive_mutex init vs __GTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION
--- Comment #3 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 07:58 --- This is probably just another ordering issue. I'm on it. -benjamin -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29426
[Bug libstdc++/29426] [4.2 Regression] static __recursive_mutex init vs __GTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION
--- Comment #4 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 09:48 --- This is a regression, oh well. Can you confirm for me that mingw32 is a target w/o __cxa_atexit? I don't suppose it will make any difference, but can you please try: - __gnu_cxx::__recursive_mutex static_mutex; + static __gnu_cxx::__recursive_mutex static_mutex; best, benjamin -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29426
[Bug libstdc++/29426] [4.2 Regression] static __recursive_mutex init vs __GTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION
--- Comment #5 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 09:55 --- Created an attachment (id=12407) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12407action=view) simple failure testcase -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29426
[Bug libstdc++/29426] [4.2 Regression] static __recursive_mutex init vs __GTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION
--- Comment #6 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 14:48 --- Created an attachment (id=12408) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12408action=view) patch Please try this and see if it works. If so, let me know. -benjamin -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29426
[Bug libstdc++/29426] [4.2 Regression] static __recursive_mutex init vs __GTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION
--- Comment #7 from echristo at apple dot com 2006-10-11 18:14 --- I'm testing it now. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29426
[Bug libstdc++/29426] [4.2 Regression] static __recursive_mutex init vs __GTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION
--- Comment #8 from echristo at apple dot com 2006-10-11 18:24 --- OK. Seems to be working (i.e. build succeeded and testing isn't blowing up). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29426
[Bug libstdc++/29426] [4.2 Regression] static __recursive_mutex init vs __GTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION
--- Comment #9 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 19:11 --- Hmm. Eric, are you testing this on mingw32, or on darwin? If darwin, is this the cause of the recent massive failures? If so, I'll put this in immediately. If you can let me know in the next 2-3 hours I can get it in today. -benjamin -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29426
[Bug libstdc++/29426] [4.2 Regression] static __recursive_mutex init vs __GTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION
--- Comment #10 from echristo at apple dot com 2006-10-11 19:34 --- Testing on darwin, the patch seems to get rid of the massive failures I was seeing. Thanks Ben. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29426
[Bug libstdc++/29426] [4.2 Regression] static __recursive_mutex init vs __GTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION
--- Comment #11 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-11 20:18 --- Subject: Bug 29426 Author: bkoz Date: Wed Oct 11 20:18:36 2006 New Revision: 117643 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=117643 Log: 2006-10-11 Benjamin Kosnik [EMAIL PROTECTED] PR libstdc++/29426 * libsupc++/guard.cc (get_static_mutex): New. (mutex_wrapper::mutex_wrapper): Use it to get properly initialized recursive mutex without ordering issues. * src/locale_init.cc (__get_locale_mutex): No need to uglify. Change to get_locale_mutex. Modified: trunk/libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog trunk/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/guard.cc trunk/libstdc++-v3/src/locale_init.cc -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29426
[Bug libstdc++/29426] [4.2 Regression] static __recursive_mutex init vs __GTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION
--- Comment #12 from dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net 2006-10-11 20:54 --- (In reply to comment #4) - __gnu_cxx::__recursive_mutex static_mutex; + static __gnu_cxx::__recursive_mutex static_mutex; I tried thaty before I submitted bug report. No dice. (In reply to comment #11) 2006-10-11 Benjamin Kosnik [EMAIL PROTECTED] PR libstdc++/29426 * libsupc++/guard.cc (get_static_mutex): New. (mutex_wrapper::mutex_wrapper): Use it to get properly initialized recursive mutex without ordering issues. * src/locale_init.cc (__get_locale_mutex): No need to uglify. Change to get_locale_mutex. Thanks I submitted a bug report just before I went to bed and it was fixed in the morning. Wow! This fixes testsuite failures on mingw32, too. Tested with and without -mthreads. Also tested with a pending (stage 1) patch to enable __cxa_atexit like destruction on mingw32. Danny -- dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29426
[Bug libstdc++/29426] [4.2 Regression] static __recursive_mutex init vs __GTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION
-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |blocker Summary|static __recursive_mutex|[4.2 Regression] static |init vs|__recursive_mutex init vs |__GTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_IN|__GTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_IN |IT_FUNCTION |IT_FUNCTION Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29426
