any comment from either of the maintainers? i think what we currently have on this page is factually incorrect, and this patch better matches reality. On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 10:10 PM Florian Weimer <fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > * enh: > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 9:51 PM Florian Weimer <fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> * enh: > >> > >> > no, because the C library has two choices when a thread exits: > >> > > >> > 1. unmap the thread. > >> > > >> > 2. keep the thread around for recycling. > >> > > >> > if you choose 1 (optimizing for space, like Android), your dereference > >> > is illegal. > >> > >> This choice is only available for threads in a detached state. For > >> joinable threads, a conforming implementation cannot immediately > >> deallocate all data structures on thread termination. Among other > >> things, it has to store the future return value of pthread_join > >> somewhere. > > > > ah, you're trying to say "signal 0 is potentially usable for a > > joinable thread that's waiting to be joined"? that's true, but i'm not > > sure how that's relevant to this patch. that wouldn't be an "invalid > > thread ID" until it's joined. > > Correct. That's POSIX's argument why ESRCH wouldn't be valid to > return here. It's still a forceful loss of information, and > particularly annoying since POSIX doesn't specify pthread_tryjoin. > > But I'm glad we've brought our discussion to a conclusion. 8-)
