From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-385839-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 29196 invoked by alias); 12 Mar 2012 15:29:15 -0000
Received: (qmail 29184 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Mar 2012 15:29:14 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:28:59 +0000
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug gcov-profile/49484] gcov crash if two(or more) forks happen at the same time
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:29:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: gcov-profile
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: major
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-49484-4-RChQsm3a8N@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-49484-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-49484-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-03/txt/msg00892.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49484

--- Comment #19 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-03-12 15:27:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> Also, gthr.h says the signature should be:
>   void __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION (__gthread_mutex_t *)

I don't understand this?

The current define is pre-existing

#ifdef _GTHREAD_USE_MUTEX_INIT_FUNC
# undef __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT
# define __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION __gthread_mutex_init_function
#endif

I suppose it simply forgets to undef __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT_FUNCTION like
the _GTHREAD_USE_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INIT_FUNC does.

I have no access to the weird platforms (but asked for help three month ago
and again a week ago).

Please open new bugs for issues you spot.

Btw, the gthr-posix.h path with _GTHREAD_USE_MUTEX_INIT_FUNC could have
never worked as there was no __gthread_mutex_init_function available
in gthr-posix.h.  Or how was that supposed to work?