Browse thread
Has the thread cancellation problem evolved ?
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen@m...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Has the thread cancellation problem evolved ? |
On Aug 28, 2007, at 10:35, Brian Hurt wrote: > Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> Such problems are too common to ignore. .NET defuses them by >> treating ThreadAbortException specially. >> >> “When a call is made to the Abort method to destroy a thread, the >> common language runtime throws a ThreadAbortException. >> ThreadAbortException is a special exception that can be caught, >> but it will automatically be raised again at the end of the catch >> block. When this exception is raised, the runtime executes all >> the finally blocks before ending the thread. Since the thread can >> do an unbounded computation in the finally blocks, or call >> Thread.ResetAbort to cancel the abort, there is no guarantee that >> the thread will ever end.” >> >> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ >> system.threading.threadabortexception.aspx > > So what happens if I throw an infinite loop into an exception handler? Such would fall into the category of “unbounded computation” in the quoted passage. — Gordon