Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from April 2003
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 <jhi@iki.fi> http://www.iki.fi/jhi/ "There is this special
biologist word we use for 'stable'. It is 'dead'." -- Jack Cohen
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next