Re: Bug in pthread_cond_signal under Win NT 4.0

Re: Bug in pthread_cond_signal under Win NT 4.0

[Robert Collins]

No problem.

Please keep replies cc'd to the list though, so that everyone knows the
outcome :].

Rob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Tew" <ken2@ux11.sp.cs.cmu.edu>
To: "Robert Collins" <robert.collins@itdomain.com.au>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 11:49 PM
Subject: Re: Bug in pthread_cond_signal under Win NT 4.0


>
> > Ken, what version of the cygwin .dll did you create this patch against?
> >
> > IIRC we fixed this bug a few weeks ago.
>
> Originally, I found the bug using version 1.3.2.  I thought I compiled
> the latest version from the cvs tree at anoncvs.cygnus.com site, but I
> must have screwed something up.  I recompiled from the source again
> (without the change) and it works.
>
> Sorry for the confusion.
>
>
> ----------
>                                           \//////
>                                           [ O o ]
>  Ken Tew - Licensed to Program             \_=_/
>    http://www.pitt.edu/~ktew               _| |_
>                                           / \_/ \
> ________________________________________oOOO___OOOo__
>


--
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/

Re: Bug in pthread_cond_signal under Win NT 4.0

[James E. LaBarre]

Isn't there a way to get the CygWin mail lists to include the "Reply To"
field, so that this would automatically be done with most email apps?


Robert Collins wrote:
> 
> No problem.
> 
> Please keep replies cc'd to the list though, so that everyone knows the
> outcome :].
> 
> Rob

--
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/

Re: Bug in pthread_cond_signal under Win NT 4.0

[Randall R Schulz]

Wow! Synchronicity.

This just came up on the Macintosh Java Developers' list today.

Please read this, if you think the Reply-To business is a good idea ('cause 
it ain't):
         < http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html >.

Randall Schulz
Mountain View, CA USA


At 15:12 2001-07-16, James E. LaBarre wrote:
>Isn't there a way to get the CygWin mail lists to include the "Reply To"
>field, so that this would automatically be done with most email apps?


--
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/

Re: Bug in pthread_cond_signal under Win NT 4.0

[James E. LaBarre]

If you insist that "reply-to" doesn't get used, then you have no right
to complain when replies don't get sent to the list.


Randall R Schulz wrote:
> 
> Wow! Synchronicity.
> 
> This just came up on the Macintosh Java Developers' list today.
> 
> Please read this, if you think the Reply-To business is a good idea ('cause
> it ain't):
>          < http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html >.
> 
> Randall Schulz
> Mountain View, CA USA
> 
> At 15:12 2001-07-16, James E. LaBarre wrote:
> >Isn't there a way to get the CygWin mail lists to include the "Reply To"
> >field, so that this would automatically be done with most email apps?

--
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/

Re: Bug in pthread_cond_signal under Win NT 4.0

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 07:03:17AM -0400, James E. LaBarre wrote:
> If you insist that "reply-to" doesn't get used, then you have no right
> to complain when replies don't get sent to the list.

Nope! Ever heard about the SENDER'S responsibility to ensure that
a mail will be send to the right address?

Did you actually read the text under the below mentioned URL?

Corinna

> 
> 
> Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > 
> > Wow! Synchronicity.
> > 
> > This just came up on the Macintosh Java Developers' list today.
> > 
> > Please read this, if you think the Reply-To business is a good idea ('cause
> > it ain't):
> >          < http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html >.
> > 
> > Randall Schulz
> > Mountain View, CA USA
> > 
> > At 15:12 2001-07-16, James E. LaBarre wrote:
> > >Isn't there a way to get the CygWin mail lists to include the "Reply To"
> > >field, so that this would automatically be done with most email apps?

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer                                mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.

--
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/

Re: Bug in pthread_cond_signal under Win NT 4.0

[Robert Collins]

Not true!

1) It's a mailing list. Mailing lists have a well known ettiquette, which is
documented, both via polite complaints, and via various discussions and
debates in the past. Some lists have slightly different rules, but "keep
replies to the list unless you _want_ a private discussion" is one of the
standard elements.
2) Most list servers today add headers specifying the list that the message
was sent to, and good mail clients have a reply-to-list function.
Reply-to-all is also a useful option for less functional mail clients such
as MS Outlook.
3) Reply-To is an element of (IIRC) rfc 822, which mailing lists by their
very nature are acting as a proxy/expander/remailer. There are conflicting
desires in that function. Changing the reply-to address is interfering with
the original message, not the transmission envelope - which shouldn't be
done.

But you are welcome to your own opinion. Understand that this list has this
particular question approximately once every two months, and that with a
user base in the thousands obviously very are hugely motivated to see it
change.

Rob

----- Original Message -----
From: "James E. LaBarre" <jamesl@bestweb.net>
To: "Randall R Schulz" <rrschulz@cris.com>
Cc: <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 9:03 PM
Subject: Re: Bug in pthread_cond_signal under Win NT 4.0


> If you insist that "reply-to" doesn't get used, then you have no right
> to complain when replies don't get sent to the list.
>
>
> Randall R Schulz wrote:
> >
> > Wow! Synchronicity.
> >
> > This just came up on the Macintosh Java Developers' list today.
> >
> > Please read this, if you think the Reply-To business is a good idea
('cause
> > it ain't):
> >          < http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html >.
> >
> > Randall Schulz
> > Mountain View, CA USA
> >
> > At 15:12 2001-07-16, James E. LaBarre wrote:
> > >Isn't there a way to get the CygWin mail lists to include the "Reply
To"
> > >field, so that this would automatically be done with most email apps?
>
> --
> 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/
>
>


--
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/

Re: Bug in pthread_cond_signal under Win NT 4.0

[Randall R Schulz]

James,

Whether or not that argument is valid, as Robert Cook has already 
contributed his own refutation, I have never once ever on any list at any 
time since I've used the Internet in any capacity for any purpose, issued 
such a complaint or anything even remotely resembling one.

I remain staunchly opposed to Reply-To alterations by mailing list software.

Randall Schulz
Mountain View, CA USA


At 04:03 2001-07-17, James E. LaBarre wrote:
>If you insist that "reply-to" doesn't get used, then you have no right
>to complain when replies don't get sent to the list.
>
>
>Randall R Schulz wrote:
> >
> > Wow! Synchronicity.
> >
> > This just came up on the Macintosh Java Developers' list today.
> >
> > Please read this, if you think the Reply-To business is a good idea ('cause
> > it ain't):
> >          < http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html >.
> >
> > Randall Schulz
> > Mountain View, CA USA
> >
> > At 15:12 2001-07-16, James E. LaBarre wrote:
> > >Isn't there a way to get the CygWin mail lists to include the "Reply To"
> > >field, so that this would automatically be done with most email apps?


--
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/

Re: Bug in pthread_cond_signal under Win NT 4.0

[James E. LaBarre]

yep, I read it.  Doesn't mean I agreed with it.  I do understand their
points however.

The difference I guess is that I was looking for a list more oriented
towards *users*, while this list tends more towards the *developer*
crowd (despite there being a "cygwin-developers" list).  Perhaps in the
development field, it is more common to do it your way.


Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 07:03:17AM -0400, James E. LaBarre wrote:
> > If you insist that "reply-to" doesn't get used, then you have no right
> > to complain when replies don't get sent to the list.
> 
> Nope! Ever heard about the SENDER'S responsibility to ensure that
> a mail will be send to the right address?
> 
> Did you actually read the text under the below mentioned URL?
> 
> Corinna
> 
> >
> >
> > Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > >
> > > Wow! Synchronicity.
> > >
> > > This just came up on the Macintosh Java Developers' list today.
> > >
> > > Please read this, if you think the Reply-To business is a good idea ('cause
> > > it ain't):
> > >          < http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html >.
> > >
> > > Randall Schulz
> > > Mountain View, CA USA
> > >
> > > At 15:12 2001-07-16, James E. LaBarre wrote:
> > > >Isn't there a way to get the CygWin mail lists to include the "Reply To"
> > > >field, so that this would automatically be done with most email apps?
> 
> --
> Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
> Cygwin Developer                                mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
> Red Hat, Inc.
> 
> --
> 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/

--
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/

Re: Bug in pthread_cond_signal under Win NT 4.0

[Charles S. Wilson]

James E. LaBarre wrote:

> If you insist that "reply-to" doesn't get used, then you have no right
> to complain when replies don't get sent to the list.


Regardless of anyone else's particular opinion on the narrow question: 
"should the cygwin mailing list software automatically insert <override> 
a Reply-To header"....

*I* can most certainly complain when I get off-list cygwin-related 
email.  Or when someone inappropriately takes a public discussion 
off-list (e.g. by not replying to the list).

--Chuck




--
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/

Re: Bug in pthread_cond_signal under Win NT 4.0

[Robert Collins]

Ken, what version of the cygwin .dll did you create this patch against?

IIRC we fixed this bug a few weeks ago.

Rob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Tew" <ken2@andrew.cmu.edu>
To: <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 6:10 AM
Subject: Bug in pthread_cond_signal under Win NT 4.0


>
> If you signal a condition variable without any threads actually waiting
> on the condition variable, then when a thread does wait on that variable
> it will hang.
>
> I've attached the file pthread_bug_test.cpp which is a simple program to
> demonstrate the bug.
>
> I also attached a modified thread.cc which fixes the bug.  It simply
> checks to see if any threads are waiting on the condition before
> signalling.  The only change I made to thread.cc was adding the line:
>   if (waiting)
> at line 452 in the file.
>
> ----------
>                                           \//////
>                                           [ O o ]
>  Ken Tew - Licensed to Program             \_=_/
>    http://www.pitt.edu/~ktew               _| |_
>                                           / \_/ \
> ________________________________________oOOO___OOOo__
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


> --
> 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/


--
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/

Bug in pthread_cond_signal under Win NT 4.0

[Ken Tew]

If you signal a condition variable without any threads actually waiting  
on the condition variable, then when a thread does wait on that variable
it will hang. 

I've attached the file pthread_bug_test.cpp which is a simple program to 
demonstrate the bug.

I also attached a modified thread.cc which fixes the bug.  It simply
checks to see if any threads are waiting on the condition before
signalling.  The only change I made to thread.cc was adding the line: 
  if (waiting) 
at line 452 in the file.  

----------
                                          \//////
                                          [ O o ]
 Ken Tew - Licensed to Program             \_=_/
   http://www.pitt.edu/~ktew               _| |_
                                          / \_/ \
________________________________________oOOO___OOOo__