Re: [DotGNU]Monitor weirdness

[Russell Stuart]

On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 15:49, Thong (Tum) Nguyen wrote: 
> Check this code out:
> 
> using System;
> using System.Threading;
> 
> public class Test
> {
>       Thread thread1, thread2;
>       
>       public void Run1()
>       {
>               Thread.Sleep(1000);
>               
>               lock (this)
>               {
>                       Monitor.Pulse(this);
>                       thread2.Interrupt();
>                       
>                       for (;;)
>                       {
>                               Console.WriteLine("Thread 1");
>                       }
>               }
>       }
>       
>       public void Run2()
>       {
>               lock (this)
>               {
>                       try
>                       {
>                               Monitor.Wait(this);
>                       }
>                       catch (ThreadInterruptedException)
>                       {
>                               Console.WriteLine("2 Interrupted");
>                       }
>                       
>                       for (;;)
>                       {
>                               Console.WriteLine("Thread 2");
>                       }
>               }
>       }
> 
>       public void Go()
>       {
>               thread1 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(Run1));
>               thread2 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(Run2));
>               
>               thread1.Start();
>               thread2.Start();
>       }
>               
>       public static void Main()
>       {
>               new Test().Go();
>       }
> }
> 
> 
> On MS.NET you get a "Thread 1" and "Thread 2" printing out (alternating)
> which makes it looks like both synchronization blocks are running at once
> (which they are!).  Ouch.

I compiled it under VS 2003 and ran it.  Only "Thread 1" was printed
out.  Thread 2 did not exit the Wait() call.  I replaced the the
Interrupt() with Abort(), and got the same result.

Under dotgnu 0.6.4 and the current CVS it ran identically.

Russell - did you run it on a multi CPU machine?