[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110812153934.GI132@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:39:34 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: cluts daily reports 8/12 - continuing pthread_eintr,
still stuck with alloc
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
