Subj : Re: pthread function behavior in C++ program
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : Alexander Terekhov
Date : Sun Jun 12 2005 10:02 pm


Peter Dimov wrote:
> 
> Torsten Robitzki wrote:
> >> It's better because it's only one step from the "right thing". They
> >> only need to re-cancel (not rethrow!) instead of terminating. 

There is no need for that (legacy thread cancel/exit unaware stuff 
with catch(...) aside for a moment), given that it can be done by 
application programmer.
 
> >> Not running destructors and exception handlers will "only" leak and
> >> deadlock, but such an implementation would be much more difficult to
> >> fix.
> >
> > What do you have in mind when you distinct between "re-cancel" and
> > "rethrow"?
> 
> If you have
> 
> void f() throw()
> {
>     try { cancellation_point(); } catch(...) {}

      try { 
            cancellation_point(); 
      } 
      catch(std::thread_cancel_request const &) {
            re-enable cancel
            re-cancel self 
      }
   }      

regards,
alexander.

.