Re: srfi-18 requirements

[Julian Graham]

> - we apply the generic / bug fix patch that you already posted, except
>   without the extra thread_admin_mutex locking (which I think we
>   concluded we can't justify) - that will be to HEAD

Agreed, though see below...


> - I'll have a go at devising a test for the critical section in
>   make_jmpbuf bug; if I succeed, I'll run the test on 1.8.x too, and
>   port the fix over

Agreed (though you wanted to remove that critical section for HEAD, right?)


> - you continue on the C enhancements and Scheme code for SRFI-18, as
>   already discussed and agreed

Agreed.


> - once all of your code and tests are in (HEAD), we can see if there
>   are any _actual_ generic thread code issues that we need to address,
>   and address them.
>
> What do you think?

Agreed.  Sounds good!


> (And for the same reason, I don't think we should apply your new code
> to CVS yet, because I don't think we've yet demonstrated an actual
> problem with the existing code - is that right?)

Well, I think I *am* seeing a problem with existing code, most likely
related to the fact that the cond_wait while sleeping for GC is on
different mutexes but the same condition variable.  I believe the
manifestation of this, as I explained in an earlier email, is that
sometimes a thread will go to sleep for GC and never wake up.


Regards,
Julian