Subj : Re: A pity that there is no forkall() which clones threads
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
Date : Mon Mar 07 2005 03:05 pm

roger.faulkner@sun.com writes:

> There is a reason why Posix decided against forkall().
> It is dangerous.
[...]
> You'd better have a sure-fire way of controlling access by every
> thread to every resource that is inherited by the child from the
> parent before trying to use forkall().

The point is that I do control the threads, they are all suspended at
points where the computation safe to be forked. Yet I'm prevented from
making a safe version of ForkProcess which releases resources properly
because of lack of forkall.

-- 
   __("<         Marcin Kowalczyk
   \__/       qrczak@knm.org.pl
    ^^     http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/

.