public inbox for pthreads-win32@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* RE: Trouble with mutex/cond destroy on WINCE 3.0
@ 2003-02-26 14:32 Bossom, John
  2003-02-26 16:06 ` Craig A. Vanderborgh
  2003-02-27  2:19 ` Ross Johnson
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Bossom, John @ 2003-02-26 14:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 'Ross Johnson', Craig A. Vanderborgh; +Cc: pthreads-win32

Hi Ross,

It might not be enough to simply test for the existence of a
function using dynamic loading on win32... Case in point:
Win95 did not support TryEnterCriticalSection at all, whereas
Win98 added the method, but did not implement it (i.e. returned
function not supported if you called it...)


-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Johnson [mailto:rpj@ise.canberra.edu.au]
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 6:16 PM
To: Craig A. Vanderborgh
Cc: pthreads-win32@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Trouble with mutex/cond destroy on WINCE 3.0




Craig A. Vanderborgh wrote:

>Hello All:
>
>I have just done a port of pthreads-win32 to our recently completed
>arm-wince-pe GNU development environment.  This is different that what
>others have been doing with pthreads-win32 in the following ways:
>  
>
Hi,

It looks like EBUSY is being returned by the call to 
pthread_mutex_trylock() inside of pthread_mutex_destroy(), so I'm 
wondering if there's a problem with InterlockedCompareExchange() on 
arm-wince-pe.

What I think may be happening is this: pthread_win32_process_attach_np() 
tries to detect if InterlockedCompareExchange() is supported by the 
system. If this check fails for any reason then: on X86 systems, some 
X86 specific assembler code is  called instead, everywhere it's needed 
throughout the library via the function pointer 
ptw32_interlocked_compare_exchange; on non-X86 systems the library 
implementation of  InterlockedCompareExchange 
(ptw32_InterlockedCompareExchange()) just returns 0, which will result 
in EBUSY being returned by trylock() [for non recursive mutexes].

See:
    pthread_mutex_destroy.c
    pthread_mutex_trylock.c
    pthread_win32_attach_detach_np.c
    ptw32_InterlockedCompareExchange.c.

Questions:
What error do you get if you apply pthread_mutex_trylock() to your mutex?
Can you confirm that InterlockedCompareExchange() is supported AND being 
detected?

BTW, if it turns out that you need an ARM specific 
InterlockedCompareExchange(), then the following info may be useful:

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=cache:a3Px_EyvkM0C:lists.ximian.com/archiv
es/public/mono-list/2002-September/002519.html+arm+InterlockedCompareExchang
e&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Regards.
Ross

>1. We are not using Visual C++ or EVC.  We have our own port of the GNU
>toolchain (binutils-2.13.90 & gcc-3.2).
>2. Except for a very few primitives from coredll.dll, we are not using
>the Micro$oft runtime - we are using "newlib" instead.
>
>The porting work that was required seemed fairly straightforward and
>affected mostly only header files in the end.  Unfortunately, the result
>is not entirely working yet.  In particular, mutex/condvar destruction
>is always returning "16" instead of "0" (EBUSY??).  Here is an example
>program that shows the problem, along with the output:
>
>#include <pthread.h>
>#include <errno.h>
>
>main(int argc, char *argv[])
>{
>  int i, stat;
>  pthread_mutex_t mutex;
>  pthread_cond_t cond;
>
>  pthread_win32_process_attach_np();
>  pthread_win32_thread_attach_np();
>  stat = pthread_mutex_init(&mutex, NULL);
>  printf("pthread_mutex_init returns %d, errno %d\n", stat, errno);
>
>  stat = pthread_cond_init(&cond, NULL);
>  printf("pthread_cond_init returns %d, errno %d\n", stat, errno);
>
>  stat = pthread_cond_destroy(&cond);
>  printf("pthread_cond_destroy returns %d, errno %d\n", stat, errno);
>
>  stat = pthread_mutex_destroy(&mutex);
>  printf("pthread_mutex_destroy returns %d, errno %d\n", stat, errno);
>
>  getchar();
>}
>
>The output is thus:
>thread_mutex_init returns 0, errno 0
>pthread_cond_init returns 0, errno 0
>pthread_cond_destroy returns 16, errno 0
>pthread_mutex_destroy returns 16, errno 0
>
>Apparently "EBUSY" is returned when there are waiters on synchronization
>objects.  Clearly that can't be the case here so there must be something
>wrong with my port.  The question is - what??  Any ideas on where to
>look or what to do would be vastly appreciated.
>
>TIA,
>craig vanderborgh
>voxware incorporated
>
>
>  
>


This message may contain privileged and/or confidential information.  If you
have received this e-mail in error or are not the intended recipient, you
may not use, copy, disseminate or distribute it; do not open any
attachments, delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender
promptly by e-mail that you have done so.  Thank you.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Trouble with mutex/cond destroy on WINCE 3.0
@ 2003-02-25 17:26 Craig A. Vanderborgh
  2003-02-25 23:15 ` Ross Johnson
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Craig A. Vanderborgh @ 2003-02-25 17:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: pthreads-win32

Hello All:

I have just done a port of pthreads-win32 to our recently completed
arm-wince-pe GNU development environment.  This is different that what
others have been doing with pthreads-win32 in the following ways:

1. We are not using Visual C++ or EVC.  We have our own port of the GNU
toolchain (binutils-2.13.90 & gcc-3.2).
2. Except for a very few primitives from coredll.dll, we are not using
the Micro$oft runtime - we are using "newlib" instead.

The porting work that was required seemed fairly straightforward and
affected mostly only header files in the end.  Unfortunately, the result
is not entirely working yet.  In particular, mutex/condvar destruction
is always returning "16" instead of "0" (EBUSY??).  Here is an example
program that shows the problem, along with the output:

#include <pthread.h>
#include <errno.h>

main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
  int i, stat;
  pthread_mutex_t mutex;
  pthread_cond_t cond;

  pthread_win32_process_attach_np();
  pthread_win32_thread_attach_np();
  stat = pthread_mutex_init(&mutex, NULL);
  printf("pthread_mutex_init returns %d, errno %d\n", stat, errno);

  stat = pthread_cond_init(&cond, NULL);
  printf("pthread_cond_init returns %d, errno %d\n", stat, errno);

  stat = pthread_cond_destroy(&cond);
  printf("pthread_cond_destroy returns %d, errno %d\n", stat, errno);

  stat = pthread_mutex_destroy(&mutex);
  printf("pthread_mutex_destroy returns %d, errno %d\n", stat, errno);

  getchar();
}

The output is thus:
thread_mutex_init returns 0, errno 0
pthread_cond_init returns 0, errno 0
pthread_cond_destroy returns 16, errno 0
pthread_mutex_destroy returns 16, errno 0

Apparently "EBUSY" is returned when there are waiters on synchronization
objects.  Clearly that can't be the case here so there must be something
wrong with my port.  The question is - what??  Any ideas on where to
look or what to do would be vastly appreciated.

TIA,
craig vanderborgh
voxware incorporated



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-02-27  2:19 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-02-26 14:32 Trouble with mutex/cond destroy on WINCE 3.0 Bossom, John
2003-02-26 16:06 ` Craig A. Vanderborgh
2003-02-27  2:19 ` Ross Johnson
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-02-25 17:26 Craig A. Vanderborgh
2003-02-25 23:15 ` Ross Johnson

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).