This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [C++] Re: LIBPTHREAD development step
- From: Britton <fsblk at aurora dot uaf dot edu>
- To: Anton Lavrentiev <lavr at ncbi dot nlm dot nih dot gov>
- Cc: <libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 12:32:31 -0800 (AKDT)
- Subject: Re: [C++] Re: LIBPTHREAD development step
> Okay, I got your point. However, let me disagree with that there are no major benefits.
>
> First of all, having threads managed by the kernel (which in current pthread
> implementation is not even aware of the fact that all those clone()'d processes
> are in fact threads in the program, not just forked copies) will benefit from the
> threads been killed should the "parent" unexpectedly die. This is very important
> to have pthread-based programs to work cleanly. Presently, if the parent dies the way
> not foreseen by the library, the orphaned threads continue to run and clobber things,
> like holding system resources and thus preventing from process restart (like if
I've had to write big piles of nasty code due to this issue, anything that
fixes it would definately be worth including in 2.3, please.
Britton