On Freitag, 1. April 2011, Erik Faye-Lund wrote: > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> kill(async->pid, 15); > >> #else > >> - /* no clue */ > >> + pthread_cancel(async->tid); > > > > My worry about terminating a thread that's currently holding a mutex > > (implicitly through the CRT?) still applies though... > > OK, I've read up on thread-cancellation, and this code seems correct. > pthread_cancel doesn't kill the thread right away, it just signals a > cancellation-event, which is checked for at certain > cancellation-points. A lot of the CRT functions are defined as > cancellation points, so it'll be a matter for us Win32-guys to > implement pthread_testcancel() and inject that into the > function-wrappers of the CRT functions that are marked as > cancellation-points. That's not going to happen. We cannot implement pthread_cancel() on Windows because it would have to be able to interrupt blocking system calls. (TerminateThread() is a no-no, given all the caveats about leaking system resources that are mentioned in the manual.) [OK, "cannot" is a hard word. It is possible in some way, I'm sure. But that would mean that we implement the equivalent of Cygwin or so...] But if I understand correctly what Jeff wrote so far, then the pthreaded case happens to work - by chance or by design, we don't know (yet). Perhaps we can get away with - /* no clue */ + /* pthread_cancel(async->tid); not necessary */ -- Hannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html