Subj : Re: pthread function behavior in C++ program
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : Chris Vine
Date : Sat Jun 11 2005 11:04 pm

Peter Dimov wrote:

> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> David Butenhof wrote:
>> [...]
>>> But of course technically that's all POSIX -- and my expectations and
>>> prejudices. There are C++ people who argue that an unhandled
>>> exception should always terminate the process. There are some who
>>> argue that cancel and exit should not be "catchable" -- as Alexander
>>> points out this is what Linux currently does, with a "forced unwind"
>>> rather than a true exception. That is, it'll run object destructors,
>>> but cannot be caught.
>>
>> Well, it can be caught using catch(...), but not finalized. Under
>> NPTL, catch(...) of "forced unwind" is supposed to exit with
>> rethrow, otherwise they terminate the entire process. It's not C++
>> anymore.
> 
> Well... that's much better than not running destructors or entering
> catch(...) blocks at all. When C++ people complain loudly and
> persistently, the NPTL folks will just stop terminating and all will be
> well. It's only a matter of time. Even the most stubborn people admit
> their mistakes given a year or two of the world sadly shaking its
> collective head.

It is difficult not to agree with this.

It might also be a good idea if the NPTL project issued some documentation
explaining how their forced stack unwinding worked.  It is not revealed on
Google (until this series of posts at least).

Chris

-- 
To reply by e-mail remove the --nospam-- in the address.

.