Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 17:35:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@hotjobs.com> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Another Serious libc_r problem Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9810211730270.698-100000@porkfriedrice.ny.genx.net> In-Reply-To: <199810212121.RAA16655@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
while we're on the subject, does anyone know the defined behavior when a threaded process fork()s? i can't seem to find anything in the small library of stevens books i've been collecting over the past couple of years. Alfred Perlstein - Programmer, HotJobs Inc. - www.hotjobs.com -- There are operating systems, and then there's FreeBSD. -- http://www.freebsd.org/ 3.0-current On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > Random interjected comment.. > > > > I would argue that for any case that POSIX says results in "undefined > > behavior", and the pthread code can easily detect this case, FreeBSD > > should immediately abort(3). Threads programmers will thank you > > when their bugs are revealed for them. > > If it's like pthread_mutex_lock(), POSIX will say that pthread_cond_wait > should return EINVAL if it doesn't own the mutex *and* this condition > is detected by the implementation. Much as we'd like to say "Bad > programmer, Bad!" I don't think POSIX will allow us to with anything > other than an EINVAL return value. > > Dan Eischen > eischen@vigrid.com > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9810211730270.698-100000>