This is the mail archive of the java@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java project.

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

Re: do we need separate thread for FirstThread

To: Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>
Subject: Re: do we need separate thread for FirstThread
From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
Date: 08 Feb 2001 17:57:55 -0700
Cc: Bryce McKinlay <bryce at albatross dot co dot nz>, java at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <m21yt8exes.fsf@kelso.bothner.com> <3A832F28.272B3DF8@albatross.co.nz> <m2wvb0wvog.fsf@kelso.bothner.com>
Reply-To: tromey at redhat dot com

>>>>> "Per" == Per Bothner <per@bothner.com> writes:

Per> (2) the thread that causes gc to be invoked (by doing a new).
Per> Why is (2) prohibited?  Do you mean as a consequence of the
Per> boehm-gc implementation or is there some subtle point about
Per> finalization semantics I don't know about?

I don't think it is prohibited.  But I think it is more robust to run
finalizers in their own thread.  Otherwise you end up running
finalizers in a thread where random, arbitrary locks might be held.

Tom

References:
- do we need separate thread for FirstThread
  - From: Per Bothner
- Re: do we need separate thread for FirstThread
  - From: Bryce McKinlay
- Re: do we need separate thread for FirstThread
  - From: Per Bothner

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