Re: A Simple Real World Benchmark for cygwin

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com>]

On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 09:59:57PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-09-03 at 21:51, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> 
> > Yep, that's the problem.  And the reasoning for calling CoInit/CoUnint
> > always as pair here since there's no way to rely on that the application
> > will *not* call CoUnit somewhere in the middle of its processing.
> 
> If it does, and it didnt' call CoInit, it is an application bug, and not
> our problem. Thats why there is the requirement to pair the calls - to
> allow us to call it once when we need it, and once on shutdown. If we
> need to call it once per thread, then IMO we simply set a per-thread
> flag when we have called it.

That's not the point.  The application *may* call CoInit() before
requesting the first path to a shortcut and it *may* call CoUninit()
before requesting another path to a shortcut, all in the same thread.
The CoInit/CoUnint brace in shortcut.c is safe against that:

    Application  Cygwin-DLL

    CoInit()
    lstat()    ->  CoInit()
                   CoUninit()
    CoUninit()
    lstat()    ->  CoInit()
                   CoUninit()

while storing our own state is not safe:

    Application  Cygwin-DLL

    CoInit()
                   CoInit()
    lstat()    ->  ok
    CoUninit()
    lstat()    ->  ???

To workaround that situation, Cygwin would have to call CoInit()
anyway to know it's state.  Since that requires to be balanced
according to MSDN...

Corinna

-- 
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/