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 CohenThread Previous | Thread Next