Christian Herzig
pthread_mutex_trylock() and by the way, pthread_mutex_lock() do not set errno.
Pthread-methods directly return error code as int. See related man-pages for
details.
Michael Sartain
This is a quick pass at adding Linux RealtimeKit thread priority support to SDL.
It allows me to bump the thread priority to high without root privileges or setting any caps, etc.
rtkit readme here:
http://git.0pointer.net/rtkit.git/tree/README
Most pthread functions return 0 on success and non-zero on error, but those
errors might be positive or negative, so checking for return values in the
Unix style, where errors are less than zero, is a bug.
Fixes Bugzilla #4039.
SDL now builds with gcc 7.2 with the following command line options:
-Wall -pedantic-errors -Wno-deprecated-declarations -Wno-overlength-strings --std=c99
Ian Abbott
I just spotted what I think is a bug in "src/thread/pthread/SDL_sysmutex.c" in the SDL_TryLockMutex function when FAKE_RECURSIVE_MUTEX is defined (for an implementation of Pthreads with no recursive mutex support). It calls pthread_mutex_lock instead of pthread_mutex_trylock, so it will block until the mutex is available instead of returning SDL_MUTEX_TIMEDOUT if it cannot lock the mutex immediately.
It's easier for Visual Studio users that want this information to turn it on
or live without it, than it is to explain why every debugger that isn't Visual
Studio crashes out here. Eventually SetThreadDescription() will be the thing
everyone uses anyhow.
Fixes Bugzilla #3645.
(and several others).
This is a bleeding edge API, added to Windows 10 Anniversary Edition (build
1607, specifically).
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/mt774976(v=vs.85).aspx
Nothing supports this yet, including WinDbg, Visual Studio, minidumps, etc,
so we still need to also use the RaiseException hack. But presumably tools
will use this API as a more robust and universal way to get thread names
sooner or later, so we'll start broadcasting to it now.
Sylvain
After a long time, I found out more clearly what was going wrong.
The native libraries should be built with a "APP_PLATFORM" as low as possible.
Ideally, APP_PLATFORM should be equals to the minSdkVersion of the AndroidManifest.xml
So that the application never runs on a lower APP_PLATFORM than it has been built for.
An additional good patch would be to write explicitly in "jni/Application.mk": APP_PLATFORM=android-10
(If no APP_PLATFORM is set, the "targetSdkVersion" of the AndroidManifest.xml is applied as an APP_PLATFORM to the native libraries. And currently, this is bad, because targetSdkVersion is 12, whereas minSdkLevel is 10.
And in fact, there is a warning from ndk: "Android NDK: WARNING: APP_PLATFORM android-12 is larger than android:minSdkVersion 10 in ./AndroidManifest.xml".)
to precise what happened in the initial reported test-case:
Let say the "c" code contains a call to "srand()".
with APP_PLATFORM=android-21, libSDL2.so contains a undef reference to "srand()".
with APP_PLATFORM=android-10, libSDL2.so contains a undef reference to "srand48()".
but srand() is missing on devices with APP_PLATFORM=android-10 (it was in fact replaced by srand48()).
So, if you build for android-21 (where srand() is available), you will really have a call to "srand()" and it will fail on android-10.
That was the issue. The path tried to fix this by in fact always calling srand48().
SDL patches that were applied are beneficial anyway, there are implicitly allowing they backward compatibility of using android-21 on a android-10 platform.
It can be helpful in case you want to target a higher APP_PLATFORM than minSdkVersion to have potentially access to more functions.
Eg you want to have access to GLES3 functions (or other) of "android-21". But, if dlopen() fails (on android-10), you do a fall-back to GLES2.
Vitaly Novichkov
Line 124
====================================================================
const DWORD flags = thread->stacksize ? STACK_SIZE_PARAM_IS_A_RESERVATION : 0;
====================================================================
Error of compiler:
====================================================================
CC build/SDL_systhread.lo
src/thread/windows/SDL_systhread.c: In function 'SDL_SYS_CreateThread':
src/thread/windows/SDL_systhread.c:124:45: error: 'STACK_SIZE_PARAM_IS_A_RESERVA
TION' undeclared (first use in this function)
const DWORD flags = thread->stacksize ? STACK_SIZE_PARAM_IS_A_RESERVATION :
0;
^
src/thread/windows/SDL_systhread.c:124:45: note: each undeclared identifier is r
eported only once for each function it appears in
make: *** [build/SDL_systhread.lo] Error 1
====================================================================
Fixing when I adding into begin of the file:
====================================================================
#ifndef STACK_SIZE_PARAM_IS_A_RESERVATION
#define STACK_SIZE_PARAM_IS_A_RESERVATION 0x00010000
#endif
====================================================================
This allows us to set an explicit stack size (overriding the system default
and the global hint an app might have set), and remove all the macro salsa
for dealing with _beginthreadex and such, as internal threads always set those
to NULL anyhow.
I've taken some guesses on reasonable (and tiny!) stack sizes for our
internal threads, but some of these might turn out to be too small in
practice and need an increase. Most of them are simple functions, though.
We now only raise the magic exception that names the thread when
IsDebuggerPresent() returns true. In such a case, Visual Studio will
catch the exception, set the thread name, and let the debugged process
continue normally. If the debugger isn't running, we don't raise an exception
at all.
Setting the name is a debugger trick; if the debugger isn't running, the name
won't be set if attached later in any case, so this doesn't lose functionality.
This lets this code work without assembly code, on win32 and win64, and
across various compilers.
The only "gotcha" is that if you have something attached that looks like a
debugger but doesn't respect this magic exception trick, the process will
likely crash, but that's probably a deficiency of the attached program.
Fixes Bugzilla #2089.
