public inbox for pthreads-win32@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ross Johnson <rpj@callisto.canberra.edu.au>
To: hanzhu <schumi.han@gmail.com>
Cc: James Mansion <james@wgold.demon.co.uk>,
	  Pthreads-Win32 list <pthreads-win32@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: New pthreads-w32 releases available: versions 2.7.0 and 1.11.0
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 15:32:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4482FCDF.8010900@callisto.canberra.edu.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <448245B5.3000400@gmail.com>

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=gb18030; format=flowed, Size: 1636 bytes --]

hanzhu wrote:

> Sure,
> We always observe this project!
>
> _______________________________________________________
> Best Regards,
> hanzhu
>
>
> James Mansion дµÀ:
>
>> Quiet round here - is this still current?
>>
>>> Announcing two new releases of pthreads-w32:-
>>> pthreads-w32-2-7-0-release
>>> pthreads-w32-1-11-0-release
>>
Not sure why I didn't see the OPs message, however ... there have been a 
couple of fairly small changes to the package, but no bug fixes or 
changes that would affect existing applications. Nevertheless, it's 
probably time for another release.

There has been a portability addition that has been placed into CVS:

 From the ChangeLog:
2006-01-25  Prashant Thakre <prashant.thakre at gmail.com>

        * pthread_cancel.c: Added _M_IA64 register context support.

An issue that has been raised, but has not resulted in any changes in 
the code yet, had to do with pthread_barrier_wait(). The following entry 
has been placed in the BUGS file, and a note in the Known Bugs section 
of the relevant manual pages (also in CVS):

4. pthread_barrier_wait() can deadlock if the number of potential calling
threads for a particular barrier is greater than the barrier count parameter
given to pthread_barrier_init() for that barrier.

This is due to the very lightweight implementation of pthread-win32 
barriers.
To cope with more than "count" possible waiters, barriers must effectively
implement all the same safeguards as condition variables, making them much
"heavier" than at present.

The workaround is to ensure that no more than "count" threads attempt to 
wait
at the barrier.

Regards.
Ross

      reply	other threads:[~2006-06-04 15:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-06-04  2:31 Ross Johnson
2006-06-03 15:32 ` James Mansion
2006-06-04  2:29   ` hanzhu
2006-06-04 15:32     ` Ross Johnson [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4482FCDF.8010900@callisto.canberra.edu.au \
    --to=rpj@callisto.canberra.edu.au \
    --cc=james@wgold.demon.co.uk \
    --cc=pthreads-win32@sources.redhat.com \
    --cc=schumi.han@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).