Boost logo

Boost :

From: Darryl Green (green_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-26 20:12:18

I still don't get it. What exactly is the point you are trying to make? Are
you suggesting that one should or shouldn't, can or can't write a terminate
handler that terminates the thread but not the process and is such a program
conforming or not?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexander Terekhov [mailto:terekhov_at_[hidden]]
> Darryl Green wrote:
> [...]
> > > But "stack unwinding" (to the extent that there can be >>NO<<
> > > try scope at all; see the definition of "stack unwinding" term)
> > > explicitly PROHIBITED in all but one terminate() cases:
> >
> > Doesn't this only define what happens before terminate() is called?
> Yes, "strictly speaking", this bit constrains implementations; "only".
> > I don't
> > see the conflict between this and the use of pthread_exit() (or
> > "equivalent")
> Again, ``pthread_exit() (or "equivalent")'' is nothing but an
> exception...
> > in a terminate handler in order to get the desired(?) result
> > of unwinding then terminating the thread?
> Sorry, but here/now I'm going to quote myself: (in reply to
> your other message in a "similar" boost thread a couple of
> days ago)

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