mailing list of musl libc
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: "Luka Marčetić" <paxcoder@gmail.com>
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: cluts daily reports 8/12 - continuing pthread_eintr, still stuck with alloc
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 20:49:43 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E46C747.1080006@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110812153934.GI132@brightrain.aerifal.cx>

On 08/12/2011 05:39 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 05:40:26PM +0200, Luka Marčetić wrote:
>>>> Both musl and glibc macros generate invalid code for this one, it
>>>> ends with `do {;` in both cases iirc. Strange - what is it?
>>> You might want to read this:
>>> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/pthread_cleanup_pop.html
>>>
>>> There's even a sample implementation in the rationale.
>>>
>>> Rich
>> What I read was:
>>
>> "The thread exits (that is, calls/pthread_exit/()<http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/pthread_exit.html>)."
>>
>> Then I clicked the link(http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/pthread_exit.html<http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/pthread_exit.html>),
>> hoping to find this:
>>
>> "An implicit call to/pthread_exit/() is made when a thread other
>> than the thread in which/main/() was first invoked returns from the
>> start routine that was used to create it."
>>
>> And when I did, I've overlooked '{', expecting an '}'. I regard this
>> as slight inconsistency in the standard. At least it's missing the
>> word "explicitly", but I'd reword it altogether hehe.
>> Anyway, I'll just cast the void* to a function pointer and call it directly.
> I don't follow what you're saying in this email...
>
> Rich

pthread_exit is allegedly called upon main thread function return, and 
it is specified to pop and execute pushed functions. I expected this to 
happen. I was blaming the spec for not being more specific, and saying 
that pthread_exit should be explicitly called. But in reality, perhaps 
even an implicit call should work, in which case the spec isn't to 
blame, but both implementations instead?
Luka


  reply	other threads:[~2011-08-13 18:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-08-12  2:45 Luka Marčetić
2011-08-12  2:41 ` Rich Felker
2011-08-12 15:40   ` Luka Marčetić
2011-08-12 15:39     ` Rich Felker
2011-08-13 18:49       ` Luka Marčetić [this message]
2011-08-13 18:43         ` Rich Felker
2011-08-13 19:03           ` Luka Marčetić
2011-08-12  2:47 ` Rich Felker
2011-08-12  3:13   ` Solar Designer
2011-08-12 15:48     ` Luka Marčetić
2011-08-12  3:12 ` Rich Felker

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4E46C747.1080006@gmail.com \
    --to=paxcoder@gmail.com \
    --cc=musl@lists.openwall.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/musl/

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).