1.7.15-1: pthread_cancel and pthread_kill not working as expected

Corinna Vinschen corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com
Mon May 21 10:47:00 GMT 2012

On May 21 12:26, Otto Meta wrote:
> > You should always try the most recent http://cygwin.com/snapshots.
> Thanks for the suggestion, that did indeed change something: The tests
> yield the same half-broken behaviour for pthread_cancel as with 1.7.7
> and 1.7.9. That’s better than the almost completely broken behaviour
> from 1.7.12-1 to 1.7.15-1. pthread_kill is still as unreliable as in
> 1.7.12-1 and newer, though.
> Results with cygwin1-20120517.dll:
> Test 1:
>   Blocking on semaphore: Works
>   Blocking on pause(): Works
>   Blocking on read(): Not deterministic: One thread is killed, the other
>     two stay
> Test 2:
>   Independent of what the threads are blocked on, nothing is cancelled.
> Test 3:
>   Blocking on semaphore: May or may not signal the correct thread.
>   Blocking on pause(): Same as semaphore.
>   Blocking on read(): One thread executes the signal handler, the other
>     two don't. Thread chosen seemingly at random.
> Test 4:
>   Not deterministic: Targeted thread either executes the signal handler
>   every time or not at all.
> Test 5:
>   Not deterministic: Threads may or may not exit after being poked.
> Test 6:
>   Not deterministic: Threads may or may not exit after being poked.
> In short:
> - Deferred pthread_cancel seems to work.
> - Asynchronous pthtread_cancel seems to have no effect.
> - pthread_kill is basically hit or miss.

Would you mind to provide *simple* testcases to allow easy debugging
of your observations?


Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

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

More information about the Cygwin mailing list