In this case is dangerous because in split() we reset the flag to
false, but if it was set due to a cut-off higher in the tree we
completely miss that and go on with the full search.
No functional change.
Signed-off-by: Marco Costalba <mcostalba@gmail.com>
for (int i = 0; i < ActiveThreads; i++)
splitPoint->slaves[i] = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < ActiveThreads; i++)
splitPoint->slaves[i] = 0;
- threads[master].idle = false;
- threads[master].stopRequest = false;
threads[master].splitPoint = splitPoint;
threads[master].splitPoint = splitPoint;
+ // If we are here it means we are not idle
+ assert(!threads[master].idle);
+
+ // Following assert could fail because we could be slave of a master
+ // thread that has just raised a stop request. Note that stopRequest
+ // can be changed with only splitPoint::lock held, not with MPLock.
+ /* assert(!threads[master].stopRequest); */
+
// Allocate available threads setting idle flag to false
for (int i = 0; i < ActiveThreads && splitPoint->cpus < MaxThreadsPerSplitPoint; i++)
if (thread_is_available(i, master))
// Allocate available threads setting idle flag to false
for (int i = 0; i < ActiveThreads && splitPoint->cpus < MaxThreadsPerSplitPoint; i++)
if (thread_is_available(i, master))