Boost logo

Boost :

From: graydon hoare (graydon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-23 15:16:30

Alexander Terekhov <terekhov_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Yes. The wrong thing is that NPTL *DOESN'T* "translate" thread
> cancelation (and thread exit) into a C++ exception... ala

aha. well, I'm no master of understanding these matters, but having
now read your exhaustive thread on the matter, I can see that it might
be nice to translate the cancellation event into a named exception, as
you write. on the other hand, it also seems to be an implementation
defined choice how to map into the C++ runtime. so, it may not be
good, but I think it's at least roughly conformant.

what I'm not certain of is whether you think things used to be ok with
linuxthreads and got *worse* with NPTL, or whether NPTL is simply
maintaining what you consider to be not-so-good semantics. you're
entitled to your opinion, but a regression (against standard-mandated
behavior) is probably worth filing a bug over.

finally: is it your belief that boost::thread will break under NPTL,
in some not-currently-tested arrangement? that is the point of neal's
question anyways, and the only thing I really meant to discuss :)


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