You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2002 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(1) |
Oct
(122) |
Nov
(152) |
Dec
(69) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 |
Jan
(6) |
Feb
(25) |
Mar
(73) |
Apr
(82) |
May
(24) |
Jun
(25) |
Jul
(10) |
Aug
(11) |
Sep
(10) |
Oct
(54) |
Nov
(203) |
Dec
(182) |
| 2004 |
Jan
(307) |
Feb
(305) |
Mar
(430) |
Apr
(312) |
May
(187) |
Jun
(342) |
Jul
(487) |
Aug
(637) |
Sep
(336) |
Oct
(373) |
Nov
(441) |
Dec
(210) |
| 2005 |
Jan
(385) |
Feb
(480) |
Mar
(636) |
Apr
(544) |
May
(679) |
Jun
(625) |
Jul
(810) |
Aug
(838) |
Sep
(634) |
Oct
(521) |
Nov
(965) |
Dec
(543) |
| 2006 |
Jan
(494) |
Feb
(431) |
Mar
(546) |
Apr
(411) |
May
(406) |
Jun
(322) |
Jul
(256) |
Aug
(401) |
Sep
(345) |
Oct
(542) |
Nov
(308) |
Dec
(481) |
| 2007 |
Jan
(427) |
Feb
(326) |
Mar
(367) |
Apr
(255) |
May
(244) |
Jun
(204) |
Jul
(223) |
Aug
(231) |
Sep
(354) |
Oct
(374) |
Nov
(497) |
Dec
(362) |
| 2008 |
Jan
(322) |
Feb
(482) |
Mar
(658) |
Apr
(422) |
May
(476) |
Jun
(396) |
Jul
(455) |
Aug
(267) |
Sep
(280) |
Oct
(253) |
Nov
(232) |
Dec
(304) |
| 2009 |
Jan
(486) |
Feb
(470) |
Mar
(458) |
Apr
(423) |
May
(696) |
Jun
(461) |
Jul
(551) |
Aug
(575) |
Sep
(134) |
Oct
(110) |
Nov
(157) |
Dec
(102) |
| 2010 |
Jan
(226) |
Feb
(86) |
Mar
(147) |
Apr
(117) |
May
(107) |
Jun
(203) |
Jul
(193) |
Aug
(238) |
Sep
(300) |
Oct
(246) |
Nov
(23) |
Dec
(75) |
| 2011 |
Jan
(133) |
Feb
(195) |
Mar
(315) |
Apr
(200) |
May
(267) |
Jun
(293) |
Jul
(353) |
Aug
(237) |
Sep
(278) |
Oct
(611) |
Nov
(274) |
Dec
(260) |
| 2012 |
Jan
(303) |
Feb
(391) |
Mar
(417) |
Apr
(441) |
May
(488) |
Jun
(655) |
Jul
(590) |
Aug
(610) |
Sep
(526) |
Oct
(478) |
Nov
(359) |
Dec
(372) |
| 2013 |
Jan
(467) |
Feb
(226) |
Mar
(391) |
Apr
(281) |
May
(299) |
Jun
(252) |
Jul
(311) |
Aug
(352) |
Sep
(481) |
Oct
(571) |
Nov
(222) |
Dec
(231) |
| 2014 |
Jan
(185) |
Feb
(329) |
Mar
(245) |
Apr
(238) |
May
(281) |
Jun
(399) |
Jul
(382) |
Aug
(500) |
Sep
(579) |
Oct
(435) |
Nov
(487) |
Dec
(256) |
| 2015 |
Jan
(338) |
Feb
(357) |
Mar
(330) |
Apr
(294) |
May
(191) |
Jun
(108) |
Jul
(142) |
Aug
(261) |
Sep
(190) |
Oct
(54) |
Nov
(83) |
Dec
(22) |
| 2016 |
Jan
(49) |
Feb
(89) |
Mar
(33) |
Apr
(50) |
May
(27) |
Jun
(34) |
Jul
(53) |
Aug
(53) |
Sep
(98) |
Oct
(206) |
Nov
(93) |
Dec
(53) |
| 2017 |
Jan
(65) |
Feb
(82) |
Mar
(102) |
Apr
(86) |
May
(187) |
Jun
(67) |
Jul
(23) |
Aug
(93) |
Sep
(65) |
Oct
(45) |
Nov
(35) |
Dec
(17) |
| 2018 |
Jan
(26) |
Feb
(35) |
Mar
(38) |
Apr
(32) |
May
(8) |
Jun
(43) |
Jul
(27) |
Aug
(30) |
Sep
(43) |
Oct
(42) |
Nov
(38) |
Dec
(67) |
| 2019 |
Jan
(32) |
Feb
(37) |
Mar
(53) |
Apr
(64) |
May
(49) |
Jun
(18) |
Jul
(14) |
Aug
(53) |
Sep
(25) |
Oct
(30) |
Nov
(49) |
Dec
(31) |
| 2020 |
Jan
(87) |
Feb
(45) |
Mar
(37) |
Apr
(51) |
May
(99) |
Jun
(36) |
Jul
(11) |
Aug
(14) |
Sep
(20) |
Oct
(24) |
Nov
(40) |
Dec
(23) |
| 2021 |
Jan
(14) |
Feb
(53) |
Mar
(85) |
Apr
(15) |
May
(19) |
Jun
(3) |
Jul
(14) |
Aug
(1) |
Sep
(57) |
Oct
(73) |
Nov
(56) |
Dec
(22) |
| 2022 |
Jan
(3) |
Feb
(22) |
Mar
(6) |
Apr
(55) |
May
(46) |
Jun
(39) |
Jul
(15) |
Aug
(9) |
Sep
(11) |
Oct
(34) |
Nov
(20) |
Dec
(36) |
| 2023 |
Jan
(79) |
Feb
(41) |
Mar
(99) |
Apr
(169) |
May
(48) |
Jun
(16) |
Jul
(16) |
Aug
(57) |
Sep
(19) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
1
(1) |
2
(2) |
3
|
4
(1) |
5
(6) |
6
|
|
7
(1) |
8
|
9
(1) |
10
(2) |
11
(6) |
12
(3) |
13
(3) |
|
14
|
15
(11) |
16
(8) |
17
(5) |
18
(5) |
19
(5) |
20
(3) |
|
21
(2) |
22
(4) |
23
(5) |
24
(4) |
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
(8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: Konstantin S. <kon...@gm...> - 2010-02-02 13:24:43
|
Hi Julian, Any luck with this hang? Anything I can help with? --kcc On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Konstantin Serebryany < kon...@gm...> wrote: > Sent a log off list > With logging on it does not really want to hang. > Instead (with ~5% probability) it loops forever. > I think this is the same bug -- the process misses its own death time... > > --kcc > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Julian Seward <js...@ac...> wrote: > >> On Wednesday 27 January 2010, Julian Seward wrote: >> > On Wednesday 27 January 2010, Konstantin Serebryany wrote: >> > > I've minimized the problem to a small test (below). >> > > It spawns many threads and doesn't join them before exiting. >> > > It will hang (or loop forever) one out of 40-100 runs: >> > > % g++ -g -lpthread hang.cc >> > > % for((i=10;i<=99;i++)); do date; time >> ~/valgrind/trunk/inst/bin/valgrind >> > > --tool=none --trace-syscalls=yes --trace-signals=yes -q ./a.out 2> >> > > $i.log ; done >> > >> > Ok; managed to reproduce it. 2 threads were still stuck in some syscall >> > (don't know which yet). Investigating. >> >> I can reproduce it, but only in the case where there is no logging, >> which isn't useful. If you have a logfile where it hangs for >> --trace-syscalls=yes --trace-signals=yes, can you compress it and >> send it to me? afaics the log is about 40MB long, but it should >> bzip2 nicely. >> >> J >> > > |
|
From: Konstantin S. <kon...@gm...> - 2010-02-02 13:15:56
|
I submitted the new barrier annotations, please check. http://code.google.com/p/data-race-test/source/browse/trunk/dynamic_annotations/dynamic_annotations.h#276 --kcc On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Konstantin Serebryany < kon...@gm...> wrote: > PTAL (==please take a[nother] look) > http://codereview.appspot.com/196059/patch/11/1005 > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Bart Van Assche <bva...@ac...>wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Konstantin Serebryany >> <kon...@gm...> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Julian Seward <js...@ac...> wrote: >> >> >> >> > * Some barrier implementations (e.g. the one in libgomp) allow >> barrier >> >> > reinitialization while others (e.g. POSIX threads) do not allow this. >> >> > If we want threading tools to be able to complain about barrier >> >> > reinitialization for barrier types for which this is not allowed we >> >> > need a third argument for ANNOTATE_BARRIER_INIT() that tells the tool >> >> > whether or not reinitialization is allowed. >> >> >> >> Yes, +1 for that. >> > >> > So, what would be the code like? >> > /* Report that the "barrier" has been initialized with initial >> "count". >> > If allow_reinitialization is true, barrier_init() is allowed to be >> called >> > multiple times >> > w/o calling barrier_destroy() */ >> > #define ANNOTATE_BARRIER_INIT(barrier, count, allow_reinitialization) >> > ? >> >> Maybe "reinitialization_allowed" instead of "allow_reinitialization" ? >> >> Bart. >> > > |