Re: SCO: "thread creation is about a thousand times faster than on

From: Mark Kettenis (
Date: Sun Aug 27 2000 - 08:57:43 EST

   Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 06:05:19 -0700
   From: Mitchell Blank Jr <>
   Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

   Mark Kettenis wrote:
> The current draft for IEEE Std. 1003.1-200x says:
> "A call to any exec function from a process with more than one thread
> results in all threads being terminated and the new executable image
> being loaded and executed. No destructor functions shall be called."

   Grumble... and I suppose a failed execve() needs to return an error
   to that one thread, but a succesful one needs to atomically destroy all
   the other threads... And HOW is this supposed to be implemented?

Well, that isn't explicitly demanded by the standard, but I don't
thing any other behaviour would make much sense.

   The previous version of the standard had this right - just leave it
   undefined and let the OS try to do something sane. Hopefully this part
   will get nixed before the final revision.

Are you sure? I don't have a copy of ISO/IEC 9945-1:1996 (the
official designation of the 1996 edition which includes threads
(1003.1c-1995)), but there is nothing in the draft that indicates that
this is a new requirement. And it won't be "nixed" if none of the
kernel people object to it. The requirement makes sense to me, from a
user standpoint.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 21:00:19 EST