From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29339 invoked by alias); 29 Jan 2008 18:09:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 29331 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jan 2008 18:09:45 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:09:25 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7865B98151; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:09:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4966B9811F; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:09:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JJute-0001j8-Bk; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:09:22 -0500 Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 18:14:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jim Blandy Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: Make sigthread.exp more reliable Message-ID: <20080129180922.GK3773@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jim Blandy , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00707.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 05:31:59PM -0800, Jim Blandy wrote: > > sigthread.exp fails intermittently, because the program exits due to a > segfault instead of the ^C GDB sends it. I believe this is because > the threads throwing signals at each other don't wait until all the > pthread_t variables are initialized before they do so. So they > occasionally pass an uninitialized pthread_t to pthread_kill, which > segfaults. I'd been wondering what that crash was about... > 2008-01-11 Jim Blandy > > * gdb.threads/sigthread.c: Use barriers to ensure that > child_thread and child_thread_two are always initialized before we > start to use them. Looks OK to me! -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery