From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24017 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2012 20:26:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 23892 invoked by uid 48); 24 Oct 2012 20:25:37 -0000 From: "triegel at redhat dot com" To: glibc-bugs@sources.redhat.com Subject: [Bug nptl/13165] pthread_cond_wait() can consume a signal that was sent before it started waiting Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:26:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: glibc X-Bugzilla-Component: nptl X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: triegel at redhat dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: triegel at redhat dot com X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Status AssignedTo Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact glibc-bugs-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: glibc-bugs-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-10/txt/msg00227.txt.bz2 http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13165 Torvald Riegel changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|drepper.fsp at gmail dot |triegel at redhat dot com |com | --- Comment #35 from Torvald Riegel 2012-10-24 20:25:32 UTC --- (In reply to comment #33) > The Austin Group have reached an official position. They have decided to make > changes to some of the texts related to condition variables. I believe that the > changes as they announced them yesterday invalidate glibc's interpretation of > the spec. I agree. Those changes disallow glibc's current behavior. > Let me point out that these changes do not add new requirements to the spec. > They just make explicit the requirements that were already suggested by the > spec. I disagree. It's a specification -- it has to be explicit. (In reply to comment #34) > It should be noted that no changes were made to the requirements the standard > places on implementations; the changes made are only clarifications, since > apparently the original language was not clear enough. How is that not a change in the spec: http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=609#c1403 ? Are we talking about the same thing here? Apparently, the original language was not clear enough. Otherwise, why change the spec? If it were clear enough, an interpretation explanation or something like that would have been sufficient, right. They even say that they see the need to "produce some interpretation text to precede these changes". -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.