From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 3 20:30:18 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-threads@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8045F16A4DD for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 20:30:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8F9943D5A for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 20:30:17 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k73KUH1M022489 for ; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 20:30:17 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k73KUHOk022488; Thu, 3 Aug 2006 20:30:17 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 20:30:17 GMT Message-Id: <200608032030.k73KUHOk022488@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.org From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" Cc: Subject: Re: threads/101323: fork(2) in threaded programs broken. X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Poul-Henning Kamp List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:30:18 -0000 The following reply was made to PR threads/101323; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" To: Daniel Eischen 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 , 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.