This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[Bug nptl/19430] __reclaim_stacks is bogus

Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |triegel at redhat dot com

--- Comment #1 from Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com> ---
I don't think it is required to preserve objects on the stack of threads that
have not been re-created in the child after fork().  POSIX states that only one
thread will exist in the forked child.  This seems equivalent to saying that
all threads are duplicated in the child, but all child but the one that is the
duplicate of the parent thread that called fork() are terminated before that
remaining child thread continues execution.  Given that objects on stacks of
terminated threads are not required to be preserved either, I think this is not
a bug. Please close this bug if you agree with this reasoning.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]