From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-27 10:02:54
On Mar 27, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Peter Dimov wrote:
> Howard Hinnant wrote:
> [ detach vs join ]
>> This is a departure from pthread semantics that I am uncomfortable
>> with. If I accidently get myself into this kind of race. I think
>> prefer some noise (an assert, or exception, or crash).
> I'm not entirely sure what is the purpose of detach as it's unique
> to N2184,
> but if it's only used to indicate "do not cancel on ~thread,
> please", there
> is no need for it to actually detach anything (invalidate the
> handle), just set a "don't cancel" flag. The race you describe is then
The purpose of detach is to model the semantics of pthread_detach.
pthread_detach is described as:
The pthread_detach() function is used to indicate to the
implementation that storage for the thread thread can be reclaimed
when that thread terminates. If thread has not terminated,
pthread_detach() will not cause it to terminate. The effect of
multiple pthread_detach() calls on the same target thread is
I am exploring tightening up those semantics up just a bit with
> t.detach() t.detach() harmless race. Thread is detached.
> second detach
> is no-op.
(watch out for the inevitable, unintentional text wrapping)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk