apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Reid" <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apr/test testthread.c
Date Fri, 28 Dec 2001 08:53:43 GMT
Maybe the create could simply cache the exit code in case it's useful later?

david

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Havard" <brianh@kheldar.apana.org.au>
To: "APR developers" <dev@apr.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: cvs commit: apr/test testthread.c


> On Thu, 27 Dec 2001 15:53:44 -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 10:47:53AM +1000, Brian Havard wrote:
> >> On Thu, 27 Dec 2001 15:15:54 -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> >...
> >> >A problem with this is that it introduces a second way to return a
> >> >status from an exiting thread.
> >>
> >> What's wrong with that? Both ways are already available so they should
both
> >> have the same type. It's a very simple change.
> >
> >I would agree, I'd just rather not have two ways of doing the same thing.
It
> >means we'll have to maintain it in two places, and it'll confuse people
> >using our lib.
>
> It's no different than having both "return from main()" & exit() at the
> process level.
>
>
>
> >> > One reason we need apr_thread_exit is
> >> >so that we can exit the thread without falling all the way back to the
> >> >initially called apr_thread_start_t function.
> >>
> >> >Another reason* why we need apr_thread_exit that I just relized is
that
> >> >it destroys the thread's pool. If the thread exits w/o calling
> >> >apr_thread_exit then it is leaking memory.
> >> >
> >> >-aaron
> >> >
> >> >*I'll rush off and check all apr_thread_create's to make sure they
> >> >have all the apr_thread_exit()s that they need.
> >>
> >> It'd be better to just make dummy_worker() do an apr_pool_destroy()
before
> >> returning. That prevents the leak while still allowing return to be
used.
> >
> >I see no problem with that. Better yet, dummy_worker() could call
> >apr_thread_exit() itself, since you'll never make it back into the return
> >clause of dummy_worker() if you already called apr_thread_exit().
>
> Sure.
>
>
> >Still,
> >I'm -0 on introducing two ways to do the same thing.
>
> It's not introducing anything. Both ways already exist & we can't take
> either away so they may as well be consistent.
>
> --
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
>  |  Brian Havard                 |  "He is not the messiah!
|
>  |  brianh@kheldar.apana.org.au  |  He's a very naughty boy!" - Life of
Brian |
>  -------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
>


Mime
View raw message