Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 00:12:42 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: quandary with pthreads
Message-ID: <20021214051242.GA27006@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20021212164838 DOT GG10952 AT redhat DOT com> <Pine DOT WNT DOT 4 DOT 44 DOT 0212121752130 DOT 293-200000 AT algeria DOT intern DOT net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.44.0212121752130.293-200000@algeria.intern.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i

On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 06:08:59PM +0100, Thomas Pfaff wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>Nope.  I'm not going to look at this.  One or both of you need to
>>clarify what is going on here.  Sending a diff where nearly every line
>>is changed (thanks to gratuitous formatting difference?) is not a help.
>
>You may notice that most of the changes were tabs in your source and
>spaces in the other.  Attached is a whitespace ignored diff.

The theory is that the person submitting the patch should try, as much
as possible, to reduce the barrier to entry to getting it approved.  If
you noticed this, then you could have saved a step and eliminated the
white space differences and helped smooth out this process.

However, AFAICT, the changes were more than just the addition of one
function, complete with volatile.  There were other changes too.  It
doesn't look like there will be any further information on those
forthcoming, however.

>>I certainly appreciate the effort involved in tracking down the
>>problem.  I would appreciate a little more effort in showing what the
>>problem actually was.
>
>The most important problem was that you didn't create an
>InterlockedCompareEchange function.  If you did i never had any
>problems, because thats were i failed.  After creating some versions i
>had one that worked when not inlined.  I didn't realize the missing
>volatile.

I took a stab at modifying winbase.h based on the spirit of the changes.
I didn't see any reason to reindent anything, though, so I've kept the
previous whitespace usage.

These inline replacements are now on by default.  I'm generating a
snapshot now.

Again, I appreciate the effort that you and Gary made towards getting
working versions of these functions into cygwin.

cgf