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: | 2007-08-28 (15:40) |
From: | skaller <skaller@u...> |
Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Has the thread cancellation problem evolved ? |
On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 11:12 -0400, Brian Hurt wrote: > Robert Fischer wrote: > > > Brian Hurt wrote: > > > >> So what happens if I throw an infinite loop into an exception handler? > > > > Now, my experience with .Net is somewhat dated, but I'm pretty sure it > > re-hangs on your loop, and signaling another abort will break out of > > your loop and continue up the chain of exception handlers. At least > > once upon a time, there was a very large business which I worked for > > that did a lot of concurrent .Net work, and the standard solution was > > to keep signaling the abort until the thing finally died. > > > > ~~ Robert. > > > > > Until you get someone "clever", who does something like (in Ocaml): > > let rec do_my_work () = > try > do_a_bunch_of_work () > with > | Thread_abort_exception -> > (* Ack! Someone tried to kill me! I refuse to die! *) > do_my_work () > ;; > > I suppose eventually you'd blow stack. > > Then, there's the what-if: > > let rec example () = > try > do_a_bunch_of_work () > with > | Thread_abort_exception -> > raise (Invalid_arg "Ack! They got me!") > ;; > > i.e. what happens if my catch expression raises another (different) > exception? > > Not to mention the fact that this solution requires a rather intrusive > change to the run time, and a special exception which behaves > differently from every other exception. That's when you have "ThreadReallyAbort" exception .. :)) -- John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net> Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net