Thread cancellation in c++0x
in [C++]
|
Prev: An insert_iterator for forward_list
Next: Templates: default template argument in a friend class template declaration
From: restor on 31 Mar 2008 23:42 Hi, I have seen, that the thread cancellation functionality has been removed from threads library paper. Does it mean we are not going to have the ability to cancel a thread in C++0x or is there going to be an alternative mechanism for it? Regards, &rzej -- [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
From: Anthony Williams on 1 Apr 2008 05:57 restor <akrzemi1(a)interia.pl> writes: > I have seen, that the thread cancellation functionality has been > removed from threads library paper. Does it mean we are not going to > have the ability to cancel a thread in C++0x or is there going to be > an alternative mechanism for it? Thread cancellation will not be in C++0x. I will be proposing cooperative thread interruption for TR2, but for now you'll have to make do with the interruption support I've implemented in the Boost.thread library (<http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_35_0/doc/html/thread.html>). See the description on my blog: <http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk/threading/thread-interruption-in-boost-thread-library.html> Anthony -- Anthony Williams | Just Software Solutions Ltd Custom Software Development | http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk Registered in England, Company Number 5478976. Registered Office: 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
From: Alberto Ganesh Barbati on 1 Apr 2008 06:02 restor ha scritto: > Hi, > I have seen, that the thread cancellation functionality has been > removed from threads library paper. Does it mean we are not going to > have the ability to cancel a thread in C++0x or is there going to be > an alternative mechanism for it? > The WG14 (the working group of the C language) has expressed negatively about co-operative cancellation of threads in this paper http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2455.pdf . I'm not in the position to foresee what the committee will decide about the issue, but it seems unlikely that cancellation is going to be considered again in the near future. Just my opinion, Ganesh -- [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
From: Sohail Somani on 1 Apr 2008 20:08 On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:57:34 -0600, Anthony Williams wrote: > Thread cancellation will not be in C++0x. > > I will be proposing cooperative thread interruption for TR2, but for now > you'll have to make do with the interruption support I've implemented in > the Boost.thread library > (<http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_35_0/doc/html/thread.html>). See the > description on my blog: > <http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk/threading/thread-interruption- in-boost-thread-library.html> Just read over it. Looks very useful. I look forward to its inclusion. One question though: could you not have had a thread-specific stack of enable/disable interruption flags? It seems kind of weird to pass around objects for this purpose. -- Sohail Somani http://uint32t.blogspot.com [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
From: Anthony Williams on 7 Apr 2008 01:43
Sohail Somani <sohail(a)taggedtype.net> writes: > On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:57:34 -0600, Anthony Williams wrote: > >> Thread cancellation will not be in C++0x. >> >> I will be proposing cooperative thread interruption for TR2, but for now >> you'll have to make do with the interruption support I've implemented in >> the Boost.thread library >> (<http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_35_0/doc/html/thread.html>). See the >> description on my blog: >> <http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk/threading/thread-interruption- > in-boost-thread-library.html> > > Just read over it. Looks very useful. I look forward to its inclusion. > > One question though: could you not have had a thread-specific stack of > enable/disable interruption flags? It seems kind of weird to pass around > objects for this purpose. You could have a thread-specific stack of flags, and that's essentially what disable_interruption objects give you, in an exception-safe manner: you generally only want interruption disabled for a specific region of code, and you want to restore it to whatever it was before when you're done, even if you leave with an exception. Anthony -- Anthony Williams | Just Software Solutions Ltd Custom Software Development | http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk Registered in England, Company Number 5478976. Registered Office: 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ] |