From: terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-16 09:41:16
--- In boost_at_y..., Tom Becker <voidampersand_at_f...> wrote:
> I'm not worried about library code eating thread cancellation
> exceptions. The library code has to return sometime, and eventually
> the thread will hit another checkpoint and it can throw another
> cancellation exception. All the mechanism has to do is not clear
> appropriate flag until the thread is fully canceled. There is
> need to force the cancellation exceptions to automatically rethrow
> themselves. In fact, if I have an application where a fair amount
> work needs to be done in order to make the thread state safe to
> up, being able to stop a cancellation could be a very useful
> I would rather have a simple mechanism that is under developer
> control, with the concomitant responsibility that my thread code
> to be reasonably well behaved for it to perform well.
David Butenhof wrote:
"Cancel just posts a pending cancel. Once the cancellation unwind
cancelability is disabled for the duration. Therefore, either you're
just re-posting the pending cancel (which does nothing) or posting a
pending cancel on a thread that should have cancelability disabled
(which does nothing). Sure, it's legal, but not very interesting.
There is an exception, because a cleanup handler has no API
restrictions, and could enable cancelability. What would happen after
that is somewhat undefined, but it's technically legal. So a second
cancel (or even a third) while the thread was already unwinding
SOMETHING. No portable application would ever do this, though, so I
don't see any point to spending much time worrying about it."
You know, I am sort of tired playing clown here.
Perhaps I should just bow out...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk