Actually I thought of something and ran a quick test. Seems this was
definitely my problem. Basically in the process of thinking "single
threaded" I forgot that the IOCP backend would still be running in separate
threads, so I was not locking the buffers when adding/removing data.
This does seem
Grr, CNR..
With the little testbed I was unable to reproduce the problem. It
is likely a timing issue or I do have a problem somewhere in my code which
is of course very possible. I will keep poking at this later tonight and
see if I can get a repro case.
KB
> > > I'll post more
Hi Nick,
> > I'll post more info and a testbed as soon as possible.
>
> Hi, Kelly! Some test code would probably indeed be necessary to fix
> any bugs here. Also useful for the time being would be a
> cut-and-paste of the info _exactly_ from your debugger, not just a
> summary. iow, *wh
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Kelly Brock wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I'm still working up an example testbed for this but figured I'd
> give you a heads up. Basically I am getting a memory corruption in the
> following (rather extreme) case:
>
> 1. Create a standard listener.
> 2.
Hi Folks,
I'm still working up an example testbed for this but figured I'd
give you a heads up. Basically I am getting a memory corruption in the
following (rather extreme) case:
1. Create a standard listener.
2. Setup 1000 buffer event items. Thread safe, deferred and close o
