Re: ext2fs.static: thread-cancel.c:55: hurd_thread_cancel: Assertion '! __spin_lock_locked (&ss->critical_section_lock)' failed

2007-07-19 Thread Thomas Schwinge
Hello! On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 01:57:34PM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote: > > Samuel Thibault, le Sat 05 Aug 2006 02:45:34 +0200, a écrit : > > > Samuel Thibault, le Sat 05 Aug 2006 02:27:35 +0200, a écrit : > > > > assert (! __spin_lock_locked (&ss->critical_section_lock)); > > > > __spin_lock (

Re: ext2fs.static: thread-cancel.c:55: hurd_thread_cancel: Assertion '! __spin_lock_locked (&ss->critical_section_lock)' failed

2006-08-06 Thread Roland McGrath
> Samuel Thibault, le Sat 05 Aug 2006 02:45:34 +0200, a écrit : > > Samuel Thibault, le Sat 05 Aug 2006 02:27:35 +0200, a écrit : > > > assert (! __spin_lock_locked (&ss->critical_section_lock)); > > > __spin_lock (&ss->critical_section_lock); > > > > > > Why should one check that a spinlock i

Re: ext2fs.static: thread-cancel.c:55: hurd_thread_cancel: Assertion '! __spin_lock_locked (&ss->critical_section_lock)' failed

2006-08-05 Thread Samuel Thibault
Samuel Thibault, le Sat 05 Aug 2006 02:45:34 +0200, a écrit : > Samuel Thibault, le Sat 05 Aug 2006 02:27:35 +0200, a écrit : > > assert (! __spin_lock_locked (&ss->critical_section_lock)); > > __spin_lock (&ss->critical_section_lock); > > > > Why should one check that a spinlock is free befor

Re: ext2fs.static: thread-cancel.c:55: hurd_thread_cancel: Assertion '! __spin_lock_locked (&ss->critical_section_lock)' failed

2006-08-04 Thread Samuel Thibault
Samuel Thibault, le Sat 05 Aug 2006 02:27:35 +0200, a écrit : > assert (! __spin_lock_locked (&ss->critical_section_lock)); > __spin_lock (&ss->critical_section_lock); > > Why should one check that a spinlock is free before taking it?? Here the > purpose is to cancel _another_ thread, so it _c

Re: ext2fs.static

2005-09-26 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
> Oh, Jeroen noted that this won't work with gcc 3.3, but with > > 3.3 it works. Really? libc's defines __attribute_used__ using `used' for gcc 3.1 and later, and `unused' for earlier. What does "won't work" mean? Does 3.3 not accept the `used' attribute, or does it still eli

Re: ext2fs.static

2005-09-24 Thread Roland McGrath
> Oh, Jeroen noted that this won't work with gcc 3.3, but with > 3.3 it > works. Really? libc's defines __attribute_used__ using `used' for gcc 3.1 and later, and `unused' for earlier. What does "won't work" mean? Does 3.3 not accept the `used' attribute, or does it still elide the definition

Re: ext2fs.static

2005-09-24 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
Oh, Jeroen noted that this won't work with gcc 3.3, but with > 3.3 it works. ___ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd

Re: ext2fs.static

2005-09-24 Thread Alfred M\. Szmidt
The following fixes the problem: 2005-09-24 Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * store.h (STORE_STD_CLASS): Changed attributed `unused' to `used'. --- libstore/store.h +++ libstore/store.h @@ -627,7 +627,7 @@ #define STORE_STD_CLASS(name) \ static const struct store_cla