Re: 4 week-old pretest bugs

[YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu]

>>>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:27:06 +0100, Chris Moore <address@hidden> said:

> I can't tell whether your patch has improved things or not.  Behaviour
> looks the same with or without it - ie. fine.

> I'm not sure, but I think this is the change which fixed it:

>     2007-01-11  Jan Djärv  <address@hidden>

>             * alloc.c (BLOCK_INPUT_ALLOC, UNBLOCK_INPUT_ALLOC): Use
>               pthread_equal,
>               block/unblock SIGIO.

> Should I try backing that change out and seeing whether your patch
> alone fixes it?

No.  Actually, my patch backs out the essential part (the latter one)
of the above change.

So, in order for BLOCK_INPUT to work reliably, it seems that
interrupt_input_blocked should be declared as volatile (or maybe
`volatile sig_atomic_t' instead of `volatile int') because it is
accessed from a signal handler.

                                     YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu
                                address@hidden