On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 06:39:24PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 11:25:28AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Aurelien Jarno a écrit :
> > > On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 10:09:45PM +0300, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> > >> Le jeudi 3 juin 2010 22:00:13 Aurelien Jarno, vous avez éc
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 11:25:28AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Aurelien Jarno a écrit :
> > On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 10:09:45PM +0300, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> >> Le jeudi 3 juin 2010 22:00:13 Aurelien Jarno, vous avez écrit :
> >>> I have found a machine with almost the same CPU, the only di
Aurelien Jarno a écrit :
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 10:09:45PM +0300, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>> Le jeudi 3 juin 2010 22:00:13 Aurelien Jarno, vous avez écrit :
>>> I have found a machine with almost the same CPU, the only difference
>>> being the speed (3.00 GHz instead of 2.80 GHz). I am unable
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 10:09:45PM +0300, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le jeudi 3 juin 2010 22:00:13 Aurelien Jarno, vous avez écrit :
> > I have found a machine with almost the same CPU, the only difference
> > being the speed (3.00 GHz instead of 2.80 GHz). I am unable to reproduce
> > the proble
Le jeudi 3 juin 2010 22:00:13 Aurelien Jarno, vous avez écrit :
> I have found a machine with almost the same CPU, the only difference
> being the speed (3.00 GHz instead of 2.80 GHz). I am unable to reproduce
> the problem, I have run the testcase more than 20 times over last
> night.
With SM
On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 08:59:22PM +0300, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le jeudi 3 juin 2010 00:32:14 Aurelien Jarno, vous avez écrit :
> > Does it mean it's a lot more difficult to reproduce it with this
> > version?
>
> Today the test case failed 3 out of 3 times already.
>
> My VLC debug builds
Le jeudi 3 juin 2010 00:32:14 Aurelien Jarno, vous avez écrit :
> Does it mean it's a lot more difficult to reproduce it with this
> version?
Today the test case failed 3 out of 3 times already.
My VLC debug builds started triggering pthread_mutex_unlock() errors
pseudo-randomly again. I did not
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 11:28:50PM +0300, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le mardi 1 juin 2010 20:20:01 Aurelien Jarno, vous avez écrit :
> > I am therefore reopening this bug as it may still be present, though we
> > now have a different version and a different compiler. As I am unable
> > to reprodu
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 11:28:50PM +0300, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le mardi 1 juin 2010 20:20:01 Aurelien Jarno, vous avez écrit :
> > I am therefore reopening this bug as it may still be present, though we
> > now have a different version and a different compiler. As I am unable
> > to reprodu
Le mardi 1 juin 2010 20:20:01 Aurelien Jarno, vous avez écrit :
> I am therefore reopening this bug as it may still be present, though we
> now have a different version and a different compiler. As I am unable
> to reproduce the original problem, I am unable to test this new version.
> Could you pl
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 06:47:45PM +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le lundi 26 octobre 2009 10:10:45 Aurelien Jarno, vous avez écrit :
> > > I'm running on a single core SMT (P4/HT namely), so instruction cycle
> > > timing might be very different from what an UP or non-SMT SMP gets :( In
> > >
Le lundi 26 octobre 2009 10:10:45 Aurelien Jarno, vous avez écrit :
> > I'm running on a single core SMT (P4/HT namely), so instruction cycle
> > timing might be very different from what an UP or non-SMT SMP gets :( In
> > any case, the fact that is only occurs with libc6-i686 hints at incorrect
>
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:40:03PM +0300, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le mercredi 21 octobre 2009 22:33:56, vous avez écrit :
> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 07:11:40PM +0300, Remi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> > > Package: libc6-i686
> > > Version: 2.10.1-1
> > > Severity: critical
> > > Justification: bre
Le mercredi 21 octobre 2009 22:40:03 Rémi Denis-Courmont, vous avez écrit :
> % ./a.out
> 1
> 2
> a.out: test.c:18: cleanup_lock: Assertion `val == 0' failed.
> Abandon
P.S.: For what it's worth val is EPERM here. That's why I assume the lock is
not correctly re-acquired.
--
Rémi Denis-Courmont
Le mercredi 21 octobre 2009 22:33:56, vous avez écrit :
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 07:11:40PM +0300, Remi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> > Package: libc6-i686
> > Version: 2.10.1-1
> > Severity: critical
> > Justification: breaks unrelated software
> >
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > With the upgrade to 2.10.1,
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 07:11:40PM +0300, Remi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Package: libc6-i686
> Version: 2.10.1-1
> Severity: critical
> Justification: breaks unrelated software
>
>
> Hello,
>
> With the upgrade to 2.10.1, pthread_cond_wait() fails to re-acquire the
> provided mutex when acti
Package: libc6-i686
Version: 2.10.1-1
Severity: critical
Justification: breaks unrelated software
Hello,
With the upgrade to 2.10.1, pthread_cond_wait() fails to re-acquire the
provided mutex when acting on a deferred cancellation event from
another thread. This is seen if (and apparentl
17 matches
Mail list logo
