Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> writes: > scm_join_thread isn't actually implemented in terms of > scm_i_pthread_join any more. Probably that's what's going wrong here -- > and probably that should be fixed to ensure that we actually join the > thread. (Otherwise it would be a memory leak too AFAIU.) Bcc'ing > bug-guile to create a bug for that.
I noticed that scm_join_thread was calling back into Scheme-land. Are these statements all correct? - We are using call-with-new-thread underneath the hood. - call-with-new-thread is documented to return a Scheme object from a thunk/handler. Any underlying pthreads should be implementation details. - The spawned thread sends the Scheme object to the condition variable as soon as the user thunk exits. Any number of operations can happen afterwards; the thread is still running in Scheme-land at this point, in call-with-new-thread’s wrapping thunk. - join-thread waits on the condition variable only. So at the end of join-thread we need to add a call to scm_i_pthread_join (which we implement in threads.c) to ensure that the pthread is completely gone before that join-thread returns. Is that accurate? We can also update stop_finalization_thread to use the new scm_i_pthread_join. Unfortunately, I think the GC threads are going to end up being immovable objects in the path to full process-form support. Derek -- Derek Upham s...@blarg.net
