Re: 1.5.9-1: socket() appears NOT to be thread-safe

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please@cygwin.com>]

On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 05:21:19PM -0500, Brian Ford wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Apr 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>Corinna showed me that this was a problem in my autoload code rather
>>than a problem with winsock.  That's comforting.  I guess I've grown
>>too quick to judge Windows.
>>
>>I've checked in a fix and am regenerating a snapshot.  The fix
>>consisted of deleting a few lines of code so that's always nice...
>>
>>Thanks for the test case.  It helped a lot in tracking this problem
>>down.
>
>I still see the same symptom (ie.  socket randomly returns "Operation
>not permitted" at application startup) with current CVS, but not with
>the original test case, and only on a dual CPU box :-(.

It's not usually helpful to see a "it doesn't work" a month after the
announcement of a fix.  Call me absent minded but I don't even remember
what I did to supposedly fix this.

>About 30% of the time, socket returns the error above.  I tried
>replacing the exec line in the shell script with:
>
>exec strace -o tracefile -b 1000000 socket_error.exe
>
>but then it doesn't fail.  It also doesn't fail if socket_error.exe is
>launched directly from the bash prompt.
>
>I will keep trying to come up with a test case that I can actually study,
>but I was hoping someone might have an idea about how to catch it better
>or where to look.

Put a call to the debugger at the offending error message and look around.

>Is it possible that the autoload code needs to be made dual CPU safe?

No.

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/