From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dmta0007.nifty.com (mta-snd00005.nifty.com [106.153.226.37]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C912D3858D39 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2024 12:24:30 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org C912D3858D39 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=nifty.ne.jp Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=nifty.ne.jp ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org C912D3858D39 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=106.153.226.37 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1705753473; cv=none; b=O8IfN2yz9rBB1znMrLH7Y+2KjLhZ27TJWdfnpE5VpN50WT4xIin5jw+21g0rgAjST6gD/a5OnCq9hyX2yrPFJ1v2nhLj/vACvuYqq9Pouj2CNz4TnR9m7oCydIXTRJGgZahjDxtnBodrqSeVm0oLoKty3XOLiI3rOF9ZWu9xGTc= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1705753473; c=relaxed/simple; bh=e5Ajflh/ZCnnhuPFDy/ShWm8NmfC4twFxnczfEkdaUQ=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Mime-Version; b=BYBY5WN439TyLlgvLOJiYhRioH3zrTEsKGv5arkVQo+rOxE8tLlGnyXgwElbIXc7FEVJfq5HsFibCky/enn0ZjrsVAFjSrr5b7k40sv7/aHNeEQb4nXUs5pt1MykwwioFKuZk/LwDKaVxNb3jTQETRr6YWxzyBj1M/qPe0F1fZ0= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: from HP-Z230 by dmta0007.nifty.com with ESMTP id <20240120122428603.UIDQ.1140.HP-Z230@nifty.com>; Sat, 20 Jan 2024 21:24:28 +0900 Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2024 21:24:27 +0900 From: Takashi Yano To: ASSI Cc: cygwin@cygwin.com> Subject: Re: Possiblly bug of cygwin1.dll Message-Id: <20240120212427.1e69fd3655ece73ecd508def@nifty.ne.jp> In-Reply-To: <87v87ov03x.fsf@Gerda.invalid> References: <20240119224436.876a055f356f7c6796bc725b@nifty.ne.jp> <20240120131825.4157c259fe058155137d6fe0@nifty.ne.jp> <20240120141349.cde31e62177a0405b0ee9934@nifty.ne.jp> <87v87ov03x.fsf@Gerda.invalid> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.30; i686-pc-mingw32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 10:13:22 +0100 ASSI wrote: > Takashi Yano via Cygwin writes: > > I might find the culprit in gcc's libstdc++ code such as: > > libstdc++-v3/include/ext/concurrentce.h: > > class __mutex > > { > > private: > > #if __GTHREADS && defined __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT > > __gthread_mutex_t _M_mutex = __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT; > > #else > > __gthread_mutex_t _M_mutex; > > #endif > > > > __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT here is PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER and > > __gthread_mutex_t is pthread_mutex_t. > > > > I think this code vaiolates the POSIX statement. > > So what happens if you undefine __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT? I have tried. The test case: #include int main() { for (;;) { std::mutex *m = new std::mutex; m->lock(); m->unlock(); delete m; } return 0; } gets working fine. However, this test case: #include int func() { return 0; } int main() { for (;;) { std::future f = std::async(std::launch::async, func); f.get(); } return 0; } still has the problem. pthread_mutex_t might be initialized also at another place... -- Takashi Yano