Was last Barrier Patch OK?

Joel Sherrill joel.sherrill at oarcorp.com
Tue Mar 7 12:26:34 UTC 2006

Thomas Doerfler (nt) wrote:

>Hash: SHA1
>ups, you got it, I actually missed that one when I checked the patch.
>Joel, can you fix it (AFTER! the camping trip with your boys)?
>Till Straumann schrieb:
>>Sorry, NO, it's still *not* OK.
>>- the '.inl' version of _Thread_Unnest_dispatch()
>>  has the barrier after the decrement operation instead
>>  of before.
>>Looks like you could use some vacation...
>>-- T.

Yeah and time to recover from it afterwards. :)  We were near Auburn 
Alabama and it got down
below freezing Friday night.  The days were warm and sunny while the 
nights were cold.  Combine
that with the 4 hour drive there and I didn't get much sleep the first 
night.  I will barely have time to
catch up on my sleep before doing another trip to Montgomery this 
weekend.  One of my sons is on
the school Science Olympiad team which won the regional competition and 
is going to state!

Anyway I think I have this all fixed in the attached patch. 

  critical section enter
    protected operation
  critical section exit

One other thought.  Can gcc move the critical section enter earlier and 
exit later to include more
in the critical section? 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: barrier3.diff
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 4203 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20060307/0eaf5537/attachment-0001.bin>

More information about the users mailing list