Hello Mats, On 08/30/2016 04:41 AM, Mats Wichmann wrote: > On 08/28/2016 03:58 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: >> Hello 王守堰, >> >> On 08/24/2016 09:11 PM, 王守堰 wrote: >>> Hi: >>> I have checked the newest version of pthread_join at >>> *http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/pthread_join.3.html >>> <http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/pthread_join.3.html>* >>> I think there exists something wront in this sentence: >>> >>> If *retval* is not NULL, then *pthread_join*() copies the exit status of >>> the target thread (i.e., the value that the target thread supplied to >>> pthread_exit(3) >>> <http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/pthread_exit.3.html>) into the >>> location pointed to by **retval*. >>> >>> I think it should be "into the location pointed to by *retval" *or >>> "into **retval".* >>> >>> Because the actual behavior of pthread_join() is like: *retval = exit_status; >>> >>> But the current man page description means: *(*retval) = exit_status; >>> >>> Do you agree with me? >>> >>> Hope your reply. >> >> I agree that there is a bit of confusion in the wording of the page. >> I changed this paragraph to read: >> >> If retval is not NULL, then pthread_join() copies the exit status >> of the target thread (i.e., the value that the target thread sup‐ >> plied to pthread_exit(3)) into the location pointed to by retval. >> If the target thread was canceled, then PTHREAD_CANCELED is placed >> in the location pointed to by retval. >> >> Okay? >> >> Cheers, > > The wording here comes off kind of awkward. How about this as an > alternate thought: > > If retval is not NULL, pthread_join shall return a pointer to a location > containing the exit status of the target thread in retval. If the target > thread was canceled, the exit status will indicate PTHREAD_CANCELED. I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. To me, your phrasing sounds a little awkward :-}. So, for the moment I'm inclined to leave things be. > I don't think the aside (i.e. the value that ...) adds any value. Hmm. I don't so far agree. I think it's a helpful tip to the reader to let them know where this exit status comes from. Why do you think it isn't? > While we're here, this page doesn't mention the justification for > joining in the first place, which is to have an opportunity to clean up > after a thread exits - or rather, it is mentioned, but in a negative > sense ("failure to join with a thread that is joinable..."). I don't > immediately have a proposal, but could think about it if anyone believes > that's a good idea. I added a sentence at the end of the first paragraph in NOTES: After a successful call to pthread_join(), the caller is guaran‐ teed that the target thread has terminated. <<The caller may then choose to do any clean-up that is required after termination of the thread (e.g., freeing memory or other resources that were allocated to the target thread).>> Helpful? Cheers, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
