On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 01:19:57PM -0500, mike marchywka wrote: >On 11/20/09, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> On Nov 20 09:32, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:20:52PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>> >On Nov 20 06:04, mike marchywka wrote: >>> >> On 11/19/09, Larry Hall (Cygwin) <reply-to-list-only...@cygwin.com> >>> >> wrote: >>> >>>Wow! I had a hunch that BLODA could be the cause of the file related >>> >>>problems but it never occurred to me that it could be screwing up >>> >>>environment variables too. >>> >> >>> >>Anyone care to determine if env updates are not thread safe? >>> > >>> >It's indeed not thread safe. Looks like we need some locking... >>> >>> What's "it" in this case? putenv? >> >> "it" is primarily _addenv, which is used by setenv and putenv. >> >>> The putenv() function is not required to be reentrant, and the one in >>> libc4, libc5 and glibc 2.0 is not, but the glibc 2.1 version is >> >> Same for setenv and unsetenv, which don't need to be thread-safe per >> POSIX. glibc's setenv is thread-safe, though. >> >>> I agree that it would be nice to make it safer but is there really code >>> here which is updating the environment in separate threads? >> >> And given POSIX, if so, it would be an application bug if the application >> doesn't care by itself to use setenv/getenv in a thread-safe manner. > >Why does the OS let this happen? I thought windoze should avoid >garbage.
Er, I think you're a little confused about what we're talking about. The OS doesn't enforce thread safety. There's really no way that it can. cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
