> On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Paul J. Reder wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > The problem is with the signal handling function. The function we are
> > > using right now is insufficient. We need to have that function make sure
> > > that ensure that all other threads have died. Currently, it just
> > > basically exits, which is wrong.
> > >
> >
> > Oops, I just replied to otherBill with the current code before I saw this note.
> > What convenient way do you suggest for the signal function to know about the
> > list of threads that are supposed to exist. I am pretty new to using pthread
> > stuff, but I didn't see anything in the docs to suggest a way to wait for all
> > kids and I didn't see where the list if kid tids was being kept. The child_main
> > seems to be the only place where that info resides (briefly until overwritten).
> >
> > If you have a better suggestion than the code I showed otherBill, please let
> > me know. I am still testing this code (it takes a while for things to go south).
>
> We had the join logic in the code for a while, and we removed it at some
> point, although I can't remember why. Please take a look in the CVS logs.
> I am a bit busy today, becuase Covalent is moving offices (need more
> space), so I am having a hard time actually doing work right now. The
> easiest way to do this in my mind, though, is to have each thread
> decrement a counter as it dies. The core knows how many threads it has,
> so we know when they have all died.
>
That will not work. Go back and read my previous note on this.
Bill
