[issue1703448] "t.join(); assert t not in threading.enumerate()" fails

Gregory P. Smith added the comment: Looks good. Fixed in r60190 (2.6). And r60191 for release25-maint (2.5.2). -- assignee: gvanrossum -> gregory.p.smith keywords: +patch resolution: -> fixed status: open -> closed _ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[issue1703448] "t.join(); assert t not in threading.enumerate()" fails

Changes by Antoine Pitrou: Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file9256/thrbug2.patch _ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _ ___ Python-bugs-list mai

[issue1703448] "t.join(); assert t not in threading.enumerate()" fails

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: __delete() already acquires _active_limbo_lock so your proposal must be changed for the following: with _active_limbo_lock: self.__stop() try: del _active[_get_ident()] except:

[issue1703448] "t.join(); assert t not in threading.enumerate()" fails

Gregory P. Smith added the comment: why not just do this? finally: with _active_limbo_lock: self.__stop() try: self.__delete() except: pass (i believe with works on locks? if not turn that into an acquire, try: fin

[issue1703448] "t.join(); assert t not in threading.enumerate()" fails

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: Oops, sorry Amaury, I got your remark backwards. Nevermind... _ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _ ___ Python-bug

[issue1703448] "t.join(); assert t not in threading.enumerate()" fails

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: > There is still the possibility of a switch > between the two calls. In this case the thread is not marked as stopped, > but enumerate() does not return it. But user code is unlikely to rely on this because in most cases the thread *will* be marked as stopped ;

[issue1703448] "t.join(); assert t not in threading.enumerate()" fails

Amaury Forgeot d'Arc added the comment: Hm, this is multithreading. There is still the possibility of a switch between the two calls. In this case the thread is not marked as stopped, but enumerate() does not return it. Not easy to reproduce, though. _ Tracker

[issue1703448] "t.join(); assert t not in threading.enumerate()" fails

Georg Brandl added the comment: Guido, you wrote that code... -- assignee: rhettinger -> gvanrossum nosy: +georg.brandl, gvanrossum _ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _ _

[issue1703448] "t.join(); assert t not in threading.enumerate()" fails

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: I'm not sure about the implications of Amaury's proposal, but in any case here is a patch which contains an unit test as well. (it seems to me swapping __stop() and __delete() can do no harm as there is no way for user code to be executed synchronously between b

[issue1703448] "t.join(); assert t not in threading.enumerate()" fails

Amaury Forgeot d'Arc added the comment: Also reproduced on winXP with SVN trunk. The cause seems that in threading.py, the __stop() method notifies all waiting threads, and that __delete() effectively removes the thread from the active list. I dared to swap the two calls, and it seems to solve t

[issue1703448] "t.join(); assert t not in threading.enumerate()" fails

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: I can reproduce this with both SVN trunk and 2.5.1 (on an x86 Mandriva box). -- nosy: +pitrou _ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _ _

[issue1703448] "t.join(); assert t not in threading.enumerate()" fails

Changes by Gregory P. Smith: -- nosy: +gregory.p.smith _ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe