Boost logo

Boost :

From: Asger Alstrup Nielsen (alstrup_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-09 10:32:39

> No, there still is the issue of cleanup. When boost::thread::join()
> is called it does not return until the thread of execution is
> finished, it's stack reclaimed and any cleanup handlers called. The
> only difference is that Boost.Threads, like Win32, treats the thread
> object as a seperate entity from the thread of execution. Calling
> join() multiple times on this object is valid... any call made after
> the first simply exits immediately since all the cleanup has already
> been handled during the first call.

I think you should add this surprise to the documentation of join. In
other words, you should not rely on the reader to know the technical
term "join" in the description.
I think it's ok to use a technical term, but we have now established
that it's not a well-known term to some users, including me.

> No, not entirely. If you don't call boost::thread::join() then the
> thread is in a "detached" state and is not cleaned up in the same
> manner. This is part of Ross's complaint about including such
> functionality. Currently Boost.Threads solely relies on the OS to
> reclaim any resources abandoned by the thread when the process
> terminates it. In the future, once we have proper cancellation,
> detaching a thread in this manner will do a better job of cleaning up
> since the detached threads will be cancelled before main() exits, but
> this is still hardly the same as the "cleanup" done by a call to join
> ().

I would request that you document this more explicitly, since it's only
mentioned implicitly now. Also, please consider to add your good
reasons to the rationale, since this is a contentious area.

> To make things clear, I see no real problem with using the
> name "wait" instead (or any other name). The name "join" was chosen
> because it's a well known technical term (and not just in POSIX).

Given that "join" will return immediately on subsequent calls from
different threads (and therefore not wait), the name "wait" is not a
clear cut winner any longer. However, personally, I still prefer wait or
wait_for_exit, along with proper documentation.



Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at