--- Jens Rieks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 02 October 2004 12:49, Leopold Toetsch
> wrote:
> > Does this patch help?
> No, it makes things worse:
Actually it doesn't. There is something wrong with
threads_6.pasm as my output for the test doesn't
change with or without the patch and
On Saturday 02 October 2004 12:49, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Does this patch help?
No, it makes things worse:
--- without-patch.txt 2004-10-03 14:35:58.824775096 +0200
+++ with-patch.txt 2004-10-03 14:35:37.843964664 +0200
@@ -30,7 +30,12 @@
# expected: '500500
# 500500
# '
-ok 6 - de
Joshua Gatcomb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ Cygwin thread tests don't print all ]
Does this patch help? It creates shared IO resources. But its of course
not final: there are no precautions against one thread changing the PIO
of another thread or such, no locks yet, nothing.
leo
--- parrot/src/
Joshua Gatcomb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PIO_OS_UNIX is the one defined and now parrot squawks
> "Polly wanna Unix" everytime I run it ;-)
> Now what?
Fix the thread related IO bug? Seriously, I don't know yet, if the IO
initialization is done correctly for threads. Currently each thread has
--- Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joshua Gatcomb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > After the change - case 3 now prints thread 1.
>
> Strange.
indeed
> > You mentioned in the previous email that you were
> > interested in knowing if this was Windows IO or
> the
> > Cygwin varian
Joshua Gatcomb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After the change - case 3 now prints thread 1.
Strange.
> You mentioned in the previous email that you were
> interested in knowing if this was Windows IO or the
> Cygwin variant. I would love to give you that
> information, but color me clueless.
S/
--- Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joshua Gatcomb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ... only 1 of the
> > two messages is displayed
>
> I've fixed a flaw in the IO flush code. Please try
> again, thanks.
Still not working, but thanks! The behavior has
changed a bit though.
Here is t
Joshua Gatcomb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree, but that doesn't explain why only 1 of the
> two messages is displayed to the screen when the sleep
> statement is present.
Overlooked that in the first place. So what you get is that the one *or*
the other string is displayed. That's a serious
Joshua Gatcomb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... only 1 of the
> two messages is displayed
I've fixed a flaw in the IO flush code. Please try again, thanks.
leo
--- Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Joshua Gatcomb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> I had submitted a patch some time ago that never
got
>> applied enabling tests for threads, timer, and
>> extend_13.
> Overlooked? Please rediff and resend.
I will do - likely tomorrow.
> > It say
Joshua Gatcomb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Up until a couple of weeks ago, all the threads tests
> were passing on Cygwin. I had submitted a patch some
> time ago that never got applied enabling tests for
> threads, timer, and extend_13 that never got applied.
> I figured there was good reason ..
--- Joshua Gatcomb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Up until a couple of weeks ago, all the threads
> tests
> were passing on Cygwin. I had submitted a patch
> some
> time ago that never got applied enabling tests for
> threads, timer, and extend_13 that never got
> applied.
> I figured there was go
Up until a couple of weeks ago, all the threads tests
were passing on Cygwin. I had submitted a patch some
time ago that never got applied enabling tests for
threads, timer, and extend_13 that never got applied.
I figured there was good reason so I didn't say
anything about the tests failing exce
13 matches
Mail list logo
