Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 11:58:26 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: latest snapshot seems better wrt make -j hang problems Message-ID: <20040317165826.GA6542@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <20040313171440 DOT GA7326 AT redhat DOT com> <20040315173318 DOT GB23853 AT redhat DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 11:06:49AM -0500, Rolf Campbell wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: >>FWIW, I found ANOTHER race yesterday while running the cygwin test >>suite. So, it's back to square one for testing since it was in low >>level code which could affect everything. And, this race has been there >>since I screwed up in September 2001. Lovely. >Well, I can't break the '16 snapshot either (> 11000 iterations without >any problems). I'm guessing this included a fix for that other race you >speak of. You wouldn't have seen the race. It was tickled by another scenario in the test suite -- one of the pthread_cond* tests, IIRC. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/