From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <ee9e417a0511031018g3b0d402fv589c65ef7932cca@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu,  3 Nov 2005 13:18:07 -0500
From: Russ Cox <rsc@swtch.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] waiting for dead procs with libthread
In-Reply-To: <563aed238673db601799c8fde8499077@lsub.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <563aed238673db601799c8fde8499077@lsub.org>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: a4963598-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> Your own procs can't do that either if they die. Right?
> Or perhaps the argument was that in that case it doesn't matter?

If one proc dies unexpectedly, your program is now in an
inconsistent state (maybe it was holding some locks;
maybe it was in the middle of editing some data
structure; etc.) and you are screwed anyway.

Russ