develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from April 2003

Re: 5.8.1@19053: threads goofs

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Jarkko Hietaniemi
April 1, 2003 12:05
Re: 5.8.1@19053: threads goofs
Message ID:
On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 11:47:29AM -0800, Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 08:56:34PM +0300, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > >    This is very confusing ("a thread exited"?  Should not they do this
> > >    all the time?)  "called exit() or die()ed" should be more clear.
> > 
> > I'll let Arthur deal with a) as I understand he's working on related
> > matters already.  For the b) ... hmmm, how about
> > 
> > 	A thread terminated when ** other threads were running
> > 
> > I'm hoping that "terminated" better describes what we mean (namely
> > that (an undetached) thread went away without being join()ed, I think...)
> But it is not!  The message is printed (IIUC) exactly in the
> conditions I wrote above.

Okay.  But it ("called exit() or die()d") is a bit still too verbose
to my tastes.

	A thread called exit() or die()d while ** other threads were running

Ugh.  Too long.  But if we want to go long how about turn the whole thing
around and say:

	A non-detached thread exited without being joined while ** other threads were running

> > I also think the suggested "called exit() or die()d" is simultaneously
> > too verbose and too sparse: threads can also _exit(), segfault, ...
> These would not induce the message.

Ahhh, okay.

Incidentally, I wonder about the message:

$ ./perl -Ilib -Mthreads -e 'threads->new(sub{1 while 1})' A thread exited while 2 other threads were still running.

What "2 other threads"?  There are only two threads total, not three...

> Hope this helps,
> Ilya

Jarkko Hietaniemi <> "There is this special
biologist word we use for 'stable'.  It is 'dead'." -- Jack Cohen

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About