Re: patch full of dark magic

Hi DBI Win32 hackers,

David E. Wheeler wrote:

> I *think* it works the way it does because on Win32 it's not really a  
> fork, but a thread, and when you exit in a child thread, it exits the  
> parent, too. Correct?

Sounds reasonable?
Alexandr's patch works fine for me. Passes all tests.
That's fantastic!

However, I'd be willing to spend a couple hours if someone can
guide me into compiling a debugging version with MSVC, and
trying to find out why this segfaults.

My really *ignorant* wild guess is that "exit" just avoids the
troubles bits of DESTROY() that are causing segfaults
without actually solving the problem.

> If so, then the attached patch should work just as well. Alexandr, can  
> you give it a try?
>
> [win32-destroy.patch]

Yours fails for me with the following output:

ok 18 - Should start active

not ok 19 - Child should be inactive on DESTROY#   Failed test 'Child  
should be inactive on DESTROY'

#   at ./t/16destroy.t line 104.
ok 19 - Child should be inactive on DESTROY
ok 20 - Should be active in DESTROY
Failed 1/20 subtests

Test Summary Report
-------------------
t/zvp_16destroy.t  (Wstat: 0 Tests: 21 Failed: 2)
   Failed tests:  19-20
   Parse errors: Tests out of sequence.  Found (19) but expected (20)
                 Tests out of sequence.  Found (20) but expected (21)
                 Bad plan.  You planned 20 tests but ran 21.
t/zvxgp_16destroy.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 21 Failed: 2)
   Failed tests:  19-20
   Parse errors: Tests out of sequence.  Found (19) but expected (20)
                 Tests out of sequence.  Found (20) but expected (21)
                 Bad plan.  You planned 20 tests but ran 21.
Files=4, Tests=82,  2 wallclock secs ( 0.19 usr +  0.03 sys =  0.22 CPU)
Result: FAIL

-- 
Cosimo