[boost] Re: Thread: Why is my prog aborting after 283 or so threads?

From: Michael Glassford (glassfordm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-30 13:39:48

"Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:6.0.3.0.2.20041130115430.02f39928_at_mailhost.esva.net...
> At 06:07 PM 11/29/2004, Caleb Epstein wrote:
>
> >There is the following text in 
> >http://boost.org/doc/html/thread.html,
> >under Description:
> >
> >"A thread of execution is said to be "finished" or to have 
> >"finished
> >execution" when its initial function returns or is terminated. This
> >includes completion of all thread cleanup handlers, and completion 
> >of
> >the normal C++ function return behaviors, such as destruction of
> >automatic storage (stack) objects and releasing any associated
> >implementation resources."
> >
> >Perhaps the following paragraph could be added in another callout 
> >at
> >the bottom of this section or below the "thread
> >construct/copy/destruct" section:
> >
> >"With some platform-specific thread libraries (notably POSIX 
> >threads),
> >the stack space of a joinable thread is not automatically cleaned 
> >up
> >until it has been joined.  When thread objects are allocated on the
> >heap (e.g. via operator new or thread_group::create), it is the
> >responsibility of the user of Boost.Threads to ensure these threads
> >have been either detached or joined in order to avoid memory 
> >leaks."
> >
> >Also, here are some formatting oddities I noticed in the 
> >documentation
> >from my reading just now:
> >
> >On page http://boost.org/doc/html/threads/rationale.html, in the
> >Comparison section:
> >
> >* 2. Comparison: creation of a thread that's later joined
> >
> >    create_thread(&bar);thrd->join();
> >
> >should be
> >
> >    create_thread(&bar);
> >    thrd->join();
> >
> >* 4. Comparison: creation of several threads in a loop which are 
> >later
> >joined.
> >
> >    for (int i= 0; i<NUM_THREADS;
> >            ++i)threads[i]->join();
> >
> >should be
> >
> >    for (int i= 0; i<NUM_THREADS; ++i)
> >        threads[i]->join();
>
> I guess it is really Michael Glassford's call, but those changes 
> seem appropriate to me.
>
> Michael?

Sorry, I must have missed Caleb's post. His suggestions look good to 
me; I'll make them.

Mike