From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,
	T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: (qmail 16139 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2022 15:19:55 -0000
Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 28 Feb 2022 15:19:55 -0000
Received: (qmail 5127 invoked by uid 550); 28 Feb 2022 15:19:53 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-ID: <musl.lists.openwall.com>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Received: (qmail 4068 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2022 15:19:52 -0000
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 10:19:37 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
To: Lee Shallis <gb2985@gmail.com>
Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com
Message-ID: <20220228151936.GE7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
References: <CAOZ3c1rUN24Arx5iy+Zm-4gYajfBthQsgL9q-iiNQpAo1aZL8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220221174223.GA2079@voyager>
 <CAOZ3c1p8R00oxar+nRUPTxAzLqAxwpNfWfMVfkZ0dQLnmOZVeA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220223185746.GB2079@voyager>
 <CAOZ3c1rkxt3SgTvpzb4g+HJi1+rwhhbnDP_wE8+aZyREA8dyZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220226123855.392c22acb208a966210c7af2@zhasha.com>
 <CAOZ3c1p8A9UraG2gUuzXijgzPFtPjgMX8Yom41+Wet08Uw6ifg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220228094814.be34ddcf7be25724e8f8c21b@zhasha.com>
 <CAOZ3c1pvia0_BabcKoJjP5GbZH7k8xHSa_CzLBvSJOskYfeabQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOZ3c1pvia0_BabcKoJjP5GbZH7k8xHSa_CzLBvSJOskYfeabQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: [musl] Suggestion for thread safety

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 02:43:36PM +0000, Lee Shallis wrote:
> Seems the wait just wasn't long enough, at about 4 yields onwards the
> results become consistent success, I've attached the file I did the
> experiments in, I even tried it under -O3 and no exits were
> encountered, so yes my method works, just needs a bit more wait time
> for extreme cases

We have a word for "synchronization" that is timing-dependent: broken.
This code does not work. If you want to keep promoting crank locking
theories, please find another forum for it, as this does not seem to
have anything to do with musl.

Rich