From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-24 08:54:53
graydon hoare wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> > Yes. The wrong thing is that NPTL *DOESN'T* "translate" thread
> > cancelation (and thread exit) into a C++ exception... ala
>
> aha. well, I'm no master of understanding these matters, but having
> now read your exhaustive thread on the matter, I can see that it might
> be nice to translate the cancellation event into a named exception, as
> you write. on the other hand, it also seems to be an implementation
> defined choice how to map into the C++ runtime. so, it may not be
> good, but I think it's at least roughly conformant.
Yeah, that's the problem. Well, keep an eye (it's coming soon) on
the "Upcoming ISO/IEC <thread>... and <pthread.h> -> <cthread>
transition" thread on comp.programming.threads... I'll
pthread_create() it in an hour or two from now.
>
> what I'm not certain of is whether you think things used to be ok with
> linuxthreads
http://google.com/groups?selm=c29b5e33.0202151543.19a850a7%40posting.google.com
> and got *worse* with NPTL,
To some extent, NPTL is certainly MUCH better than rather archaic
linuxthreads. However, don't run a bank (or tank) on it, yet. E.g.:
http://listman.redhat.com/archives/phil-list/2003-March/msg00123.html
The latest versions seem to have NOT changed in this respect. Read-
write locking was pretty much broken too (the last time I've looked
at the sources). Well, but "performance" shines, that's true. ;-)
> or whether NPTL is simply
> maintaining what you consider to be not-so-good semantics. you're
> entitled to your opinion, but a regression (against standard-mandated
> behavior) is probably worth filing a bug over.
I don't file bugs, sorry. Well, I've tried to "explain" (pointing
out) one violation of standard-mandated behavior to Ulrich:
http://listman.redhat.com/archives/phil-list/2003-February/msg00114.html
He doesn't seem to get it (same problem as with Bill, I guess ;-) ).
>
> finally: is it your belief that boost::thread will break under NPTL,
> in some not-currently-tested arrangement? that is the point of neal's
> question anyways, and the only thing I really meant to discuss :)
Only testing and, more importantly, NPTL and Boost.Threads *CODE
REVIEW* can answer such questions "for sure". To put it simple,
try it out but don't bet your last cent.
".2 EURO"
regards,
alexander.