From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Aug  3 20:21:10 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A93116A4DA;
	Thu,  3 Aug 2006 20:21:10 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk (phk.freebsd.dk [130.225.244.222])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C036C43D7D;
	Thu,  3 Aug 2006 20:21:09 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [192.168.48.2])
	by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D1AF170C5;
	Thu,  3 Aug 2006 20:21:08 +0000 (UTC)
To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.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> 
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:21:07 +0000
Message-ID: <50664.1154636467@critter.freebsd.dk>
Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org, freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: threads/101323: fork(2) in threaded programs broken. 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD <freebsd-threads.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:21:10 -0000

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.