Fwd: Re: C++ and pthread_create()

[Alexander Terekhov <terekhov at web dot de>]

Thanks a LOT for sharing your opinions/plans/whatever! ;-)

Perhaps you should read this:

http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=DEta8.55%241h5.204%40news.cpqcorp.net

"...I think any implementation that doesn't build
 cancelation (and thread exit) on top of a pervasive 
 common exception infrastructure is broken to the point 
 of being unusable. Nevertheless, the standard doesn't 
 (and can't) require a correct implementation, so those 
 who do it wrong can get away with it as long as their
 users allow them to. ..."

regards,
alexander.

Oh, Ah... P.S. Drepper, do you still need/want to 
kill Stallman and associates? IF that could help
with the SUBJECT... we might arrange something 
with my Russian friends. ;-) ;-)

----

terekhov@web.de schrieb am 12.02.02:
> G'Day,
> 
> http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=37S98.13325%24Cg5.700304%40news1.calgary.shaw.ca
> 
> Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> > 
> > In article c29b5e33.0202110203.147d71b@posting.google.com, Alexander
> > Terekhov wrote:
> > >kaz@accton.shaw.ca (Kaz Kylheku) wrote in message news:BFA98.8029$Cg5.493846@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > >"P.S. Kaz, are there any chances/plans that you or some
> > > other linux*threads* developer/maintainer would address
> > > the issue of thread-cancellation/thread-exit
> > > (pthread_exit) and *C++*-stack-unwinding? ;-)"
> > 
> > You really should direct that to the libc-alpha mailing list. I'd love to
> > work on this, but guys like Drepper may have some plans in that regard.
> > My feeling is that this is a sensitive thing, because it leads to fragile
> > integration between the GCC and Glibc projects. I don't know where the two
> > groups stand on the issue of settling on an exception handling interface.
> 
> regards,
> alexander.
> 


________________________________________________________________
Keine verlorenen Lotto-Quittungen, keine vergessenen Gewinne mehr! 
Beim WEB.DE Lottoservice: http://tippen2.web.de/?x=13