Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <046a01c22449$5f637000$6132bc3e@BABEL>
From: "Conrad Scott" <Conrad DOT Scott AT dsl DOT pipex DOT com>
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References: <200207051859 DOT 43753 DOT maksik AT gmx DOT co DOT uk>
Subject: Re: Re: problems with pthreads && c++ (suspect wait conditions)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 18:28:26 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000

"Max Zaitsev" <maksik AT gmx DOT co DOT uk> wrote:
> It would be nice if somebody at cygwin would document
> such a behavior of gcc, that is even if one don't have
> any try-catch blocks one still have to use
> -fno-exceptions to forbid them completeli kind of...

Another thing that I only realised recently, is that the new and
delete operators are not thread-safe in the current cygwin / gcc
world.  You have to push things pretty hard to trip over it, but
there is a problem there.  For what I'm working on (cygserver), I
ripped out all the new/deletes and used malloc/free with placement
new and explicit destructor calls.  Ugly but it works (not that
that's a recommedation).

Earnie Boyd suggested -D__USE_MALLOC, as discussed recently on the
mingw-users list, but I've not got around to investigating that as
yet.

HTH,

// Conrad




--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/