Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sources.redhat.com Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 02:29:01 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: pthreads works, sorta Message-ID: <20010627022901.P19058@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i In-Reply-To: ; from robert.collins@itdomain.com.au on Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 03:32:03PM +1000 On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 03:32:03PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ross Smith [mailto:ross.s@ihug.co.nz] >> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 3:31 PM >> To: cygwin@cygwin.com >> Subject: Re: pthreads works, sorta >> >> >> Robert Collins wrote: >> > >> > What does all this mean? We need to catch invalid memroy access, >> >> Why? A program that passes an invalid thread handle is broken. >> Penalising non-broken programs merely to provide better error checking >> for broken ones doesn't sound reasonable to me. >> > >Even though the POSIX behaviour is undefined for passed invalid thread >variables, cygwin1.dll locking up is not a pretty way to handle failure. I agree. We always try to go for non-crashing over speed. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/