For all of the effort spent ensuring that this algorithm would be
correctly threadsafe, I messed up the order of operations within a
single thread when porting to the new approach.
Fix that up.
Also: fix some overzealous asserting in the testcases. Since shutdown
is now lazy, we can never surely say !is_running at any particular point
in time.
There was a theoretical deadlock between the worker trying to emit a
signal at the same time as we were waiting for it to shutdown the
notification (while holding the lock).
The deadlock was particularly annoying because we didn't really need to
wait for the shutdown and because it wasn't possible to signals to
arrive while waiting for a start. Attempting to deal with start and
stop in an asymmetric way could have lead to other weird situations,
however.
Drop the lock while waiting for the worker thread to start. This means
that we face the possibility of multiple waiters on the cond at the same
time, so we need to make more of a state machine.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=742599
Since this feature is so utterly automake-centric, we may as well be
using the same terminology as automake itself (ie: although it's
BUILT_SOURCES, it's DIST_EXTRA, not DISTED).
Also add some comments to the enum explaining that these terms are
really corresponding directly to the automake terms.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=549783
Very many testcases, some GLib tools (resource compiler, etc) and
GApplication were calling g_type_init().
Remove those uses, as they are no longer required.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=686161
And remove the 'joinable' argument from g_thread_new() and
g_thread_new_full().
Change the wording in the docs. Clarify expectations for
(deprecated) g_thread_create().
These were the last users of the dynamic allocation API.
Keep the uses in glib/tests/mutex.c since this is actually meant to test
the API (which has to continue working, even if it is deprecated).
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=660739
==14059== 96 bytes in 2 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 520 of 543
==14059== at 0x4005BDC: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:195)
==14059== by 0x4057094: g_malloc (gmem.c:134)
==14059== by 0x406F2D6: g_slice_alloc (gslice.c:836)
==14059== by 0x406F31B: g_slice_alloc0 (gslice.c:848)
==14059== by 0x41385BB: g_type_create_instance (gtype.c:1867)
==14059== by 0x411E72A: g_object_constructor (gobject.c:1482)
==14059== by 0x411DE1D: g_object_newv (gobject.c:1266)
==14059== by 0x411DB93: g_object_new (gobject.c:1178)
==14059== by 0x42296AF: _g_local_file_input_stream_new (glocalfileinputstream.c:152)
==14059== by 0x422281F: g_local_file_read (glocalfile.c:1322)
==14059== by 0x418A8A9: open_read_async_thread (gfile.c:5050)
==14059== by 0x41B71BB: run_in_thread (gsimpleasyncresult.c:853)
==14059== by 0x41A5FBC: io_job_thread (gioscheduler.c:181)
==14059== by 0x407DCDE: g_thread_pool_thread_proxy (gthreadpool.c:314)
==14059== by 0x407C6B0: g_thread_create_proxy (gthread.c:1897)
==14059== by 0x57D918: start_thread (pthread_create.c:301)
==14059== by 0x4C6CBD: clone (clone.S:133)
Bug #628331.
==2464== 80 (16 direct, 64 indirect) bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 515 of 547
==2464== at 0x4005BDC: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:195)
==2464== by 0x4057094: g_malloc (gmem.c:134)
==2464== by 0x406F2D6: g_slice_alloc (gslice.c:836)
==2464== by 0x406F31B: g_slice_alloc0 (gslice.c:848)
==2464== by 0x41385BB: g_type_create_instance (gtype.c:1867)
==2464== by 0x411E72A: g_object_constructor (gobject.c:1482)
==2464== by 0x411DE1D: g_object_newv (gobject.c:1266)
==2464== by 0x411DB93: g_object_new (gobject.c:1178)
==2464== by 0x4220D74: _g_local_file_new (glocalfile.c:310)
==2464== by 0x422C897: g_local_vfs_get_file_for_path (glocalvfs.c:84)
==2464== by 0x41CA91C: g_vfs_get_file_for_path (gvfs.c:94)
==2464== by 0x418C1B6: g_file_new_for_path (gfile.c:5898)
==2464== by 0x8049509: test1_thread (contexts.c:110)
==2464== 80 (16 direct, 64 indirect) bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 516 of 547
==2464== at 0x4005BDC: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:195)
==2464== by 0x4057094: g_malloc (gmem.c:134)
==2464== by 0x406F2D6: g_slice_alloc (gslice.c:836)
==2464== by 0x406F31B: g_slice_alloc0 (gslice.c:848)
==2464== by 0x41385BB: g_type_create_instance (gtype.c:1867)
==2464== by 0x411E72A: g_object_constructor (gobject.c:1482)
==2464== by 0x411DE1D: g_object_newv (gobject.c:1266)
==2464== by 0x411DB93: g_object_new (gobject.c:1178)
==2464== by 0x4220D74: _g_local_file_new (glocalfile.c:310)
==2464== by 0x422C897: g_local_vfs_get_file_for_path (glocalvfs.c:84)
==2464== by 0x41CA91C: g_vfs_get_file_for_path (gvfs.c:94)
==2464== by 0x418C1B6: g_file_new_for_path (gfile.c:5898)
==2464== by 0x804964D: test_context_independence (contexts.c:144)
Bug #628331.
GFile allows for the possibility that external implementations may not
support thread-default contexts yet, via
g_file_supports_thread_contexts(). GVolumeMonitor is not yet
thread-default-context aware.
Add a test program to verify that basic gio async ops work correctly
in non-default contexts.
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=579984
