On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 12:17:14PM +0000, Alex Bennée wrote: > > Stefan Hajnoczi <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 04:41:41PM +0000, Alex Bennée wrote: > >> > >> Stefan Hajnoczi <[email protected]> writes: > >> > >> > The GThread coroutine backend was a portable coroutine implementation. > >> > Over the years all platforms got their own optimized coroutine > >> > implementations and nothing uses the GThread backend anymore. > >> > > >> > In fact, ./configure mentions the GThread backend doesn't work but might > >> > be useful for debugging. Since GDB macros were added to ease debugging > >> > of ucontext coroutines, there seems little point in keeping a broken > >> > backend around. > >> > >> Except I found that I couldn't run the ThreadSanitizer without using the > >> gthread co-routines. So while I totally agree we should dump stuff > >> that's not used lets make sure no one else relies on it for debugging > >> stuff as well. > > > > Is it still the case that ThreadSanitizer only works with gthread > > coroutines? > > It certainly was very confused about what was going on with the default > option (sigucontext IIRC?).
Okay, it looks like there is a good reason to keep the GThread backend. If I have time I'd like to look into the reason why the GThread backend doesn't pass "make check". I noticed that ide tests were hanging. Stefan
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
