 | | Re: Semaphore(s) locked when task killed.
|
|
Have you considered implementing thread cleanup handlers? Similar to what pthread_cleanup_push and pthread_cleanup_pop provide. "Joseph Woolley" <jwoolley@spamblock....ht.rr.com> wrote in message news:H1w6v9.8M0@lugnet.com... (...) tasks. (...) task (...) (22 years ago, 4-Sep-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Semaphore(s) locked when task killed.
|
|
(...) This explains a problem I've been having. I've noticed this exact issue, but I wasn't sure if I was doing something wrong, or exactly what the problem was. I have a program that sends IR messages (for proximity) and after the program is (...) (22 years ago, 4-Sep-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Semaphore(s) locked when task killed.
|
|
(...) hmmm I wonder what other unix like OSs do in this situation? automatically unlocking doesn't seem particuarlly clean, what is to say that it is safe to unlock the mutexes just because the locking thread has been killed? Perhaps we can (...) (22 years ago, 4-Sep-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Semaphore(s) locked when task killed.
|
|
I have found that killing a task which is sending data via lnp will cause lnp to stop functioning. Turning the brick off then on again will get lnp working again. The issue is with the semaphore(s) used in the kernel tasks. Currently there is no (...) (22 years ago, 4-Sep-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Small problem compiling w/gcc-3.2 and binutils-2.12.0 with patch.
|
|
John, Good Job, John! It seems that older version of gcc don't catch the problem. I applied the changes and it compiles fine for me; I updated CVS. // Joe "John Jorgensen" <jjorgens@2gn.com> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.21.0...2gn.com... (...) (...) (22 years ago, 4-Sep-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
