One possibility is to use POSIX threading instead of ATTACH. POSIX threads all run in the same address space. And are actually implemented via TCBs. But there is no parent/child relationship between a thread and a separate thread which a given thread creates. The only special thread is the initial thread (called the IPT ). When it "dies", then all the POSIX threads die. This is because that thread actually does all the ATTACHes. It is similar to how PL/I did it's multitasking.
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Paul Gilmartin <paulgboul...@aim.com>wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jan 2014 11:47:58 -0500, Farley, Peter x23353 wrote: > > >I have always felt that the parent-goes-away-leaving-the-child-running > scenario was the *ix substitution for what we can do with XCTL in z/OS > systems. > > > Ummm... Not quite. *IX supports the scenario: > > a) Parent runs for a while, then fork()s child. > > b) Parent and child run concurrently and cooperatively for a while. > > c) Parent-goes-away-leaving-the-child-running. > > XCTL fails to support (b) because the parent goes away instantly. > ATTACH fails to support (c) because the child can't outlive the > parent. (But why not? Silly design. Perhaps none of the OS/360 > designers were orphans, so the concept never occurred to them.) > > In *IX, if the parent goes away, the grandparent adopts the child. > > -- gil > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- Wasn't there something about a PASCAL programmer knowing the value of everything and the Wirth of nothing? Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
