Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:21:07 +0000
From:      "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
To:        Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
Cc:        FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org, freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: threads/101323: fork(2) in threaded programs broken. 
Message-ID:  <50664.1154636467@critter.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:19:29 -0400." <Pine.GSO.4.64.0608031614450.13543@sea.ntplx.net> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.GSO.4.64.0608031614450.13543@sea.ntplx.net>, Daniel Eischen wr
ites:

>Actually, I would prefer to emit an error message of the
>form:
>
>   "fork() from a threaded process is not defined by POSIX"
>
>and purposefully segfault ;-)

Are you working for us or the competition ?  :-)



>> Anyway, apart from the view from the theoretical high ground and
>> the fact that POSIX doesn't actually say anything helpful here, are
>> there any objections to the fix I proposed ?
>
>For that one specific change, no objection.  I have an
>objection to enabling the NOTYET in thr_kern.c without
>having an overall solution for libc as well.

I have no plans of anything like that.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50664.1154636467>