[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54047ebd-8711-1e54-e0d3-e4609cc477c7@bell-sw.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 12:16:18 +0300
From: Alexander Scherbatiy <alexander.scherbatiy@...l-sw.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Subject: Re: No such process return value in pthread_getcpuclockid
On 10.02.2020 23:14, Rich Felker wrote:
> The specification of ESRCH for pthread interfaces was a bug, because a
> "shall fail" or even "may fail" condition makes no sense with a
> behavior that's explicitly undefined (in which case the implementation
> is allowed to do anything at all). This was clarified in POSIX 2008 as
> a result of Austin Group interpretation 142:
>
> https://collaboration.opengroup.org/austin/interps/documents/14366/AI-142.txt
Thank you. It sounds right that If an application attempts to use a
thread ID whose lifetime has ended, the behavior is undefined.
I see that "POSIX 2008 as a result of Austin Group interpretation 142"
has strange comment about pthread_getcpuclockid() function:
"The same argument applies to the ESRCH errors for pthread_detach(),
pthread_getschedparam(), pthread_setschedparam() and
pthread_setschedprio().
(It does not apply to pthread_getcpuclockid() since the function
could just always return a fixed clock ID without needing to examine
the thread ID.)"
What does it mean that pthread_getcpuclockid() does not need to
examine the thread ID? As I see from the musl pthread_getcpuclockid()
implementation it really uses the thread ID:
https://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/tree/src/thread/pthread_getcpuclockid.c
Thanks,
Alexander.
>
> Unfortunately the Linux man pages have not corrected this.
>
> Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
