RE: Monitor weirdness

It doesn't do it if you've got the debugger attached (ahhh!).  Try running
it without the debugger.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell Stuart [mailto:russell-M7Clnf/[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, 5 May 2004 6:35 p.m.
> To: Thong (Tum) Nguyen
> Cc: [email protected]; Russell Fitchett
> Subject: Re: [DotGNU]Monitor weirdness
> 
> On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 15:49, Thong (Tum) Nguyen wrote:
> > Check this code out:
> >
> > using System;
> > using System.Threading;
> >
> > public class Test
> > {
> > 	Thread thread1, thread2;
> >
> > 	public void Run1()
> > 	{
> > 		Thread.Sleep(1000);
> >
> > 		lock (this)
> > 		{
> > 			Monitor.Pulse(this);
> > 			thread2.Interrupt();
> >
> > 			for (;;)
> > 			{
> > 				Console.WriteLine("Thread 1");
> > 			}
> > 		}
> > 	}
> >
> > 	public void Run2()
> > 	{
> > 		lock (this)
> > 		{
> > 			try
> > 			{
> > 				Monitor.Wait(this);
> > 			}
> > 			catch (ThreadInterruptedException)
> > 			{
> > 				Console.WriteLine("2 Interrupted");
> > 			}
> >
> > 			for (;;)
> > 			{
> > 				Console.WriteLine("Thread 2");
> > 			}
> > 		}
> > 	}
> >
> > 	public void Go()
> > 	{
> > 		thread1 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(Run1));
> > 		thread2 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(Run2));
> >
> > 		thread1.Start();
> > 		thread2.Start();
> > 	}
> >
> > 	public static void Main()
> > 	{
> > 		new Test().Go();
> > 	}
> > }
> >
> >
> > On MS.NET you get a "Thread 1" and "Thread 2" printing out (alternating)
> > which makes it looks like both synchronization blocks are running at
> once
> > (which they are!).  Ouch.
> 
> I compiled it under VS 2003 and ran it.  Only "Thread 1" was printed
> out.  Thread 2 did not exit the Wait() call.  I replaced the the
> Interrupt() with Abort(), and got the same result.
> 
> Under dotgnu 0.6.4 and the current CVS it ran identically.
> 
> Russell - did you run it on a multi CPU machine?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Developers mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://dotgnu.org/mailman/listinfo/developers