Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 20:30:17 GMT From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: threads/101323: fork(2) in threaded programs broken. Message-ID: <200608032030.k73KUHOk022488@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR threads/101323; it has been noted by GNATS. 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. Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:21:07 +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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200608032030.k73KUHOk022488>