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: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 10:13:14 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: gcc static constructor multi-threading flaw
Message-ID: <20030214151314.GA18458@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <3E4D06B8 DOT 5010306 AT hekimian DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3E4D06B8.5010306@hekimian.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i

On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 10:09:44AM -0500, Joe Buehler wrote:
>Note that this is not a total fix.  As I recall, the code generated by
>gcc is inherently not thread-safe -- it's testing a global to see
>whether to do the constructor/destructor code block, and there is a
>race condition.

If this is a general gcc issue, then you should ping the gcc mailing list.

I'd like to see how the newlib folks respond to your atexit problem,
otherwise.  One of the principals is on vacation this week so we'll
see if he has anything to say next week.

cgf