>Coen Schalkwijk wrote:
>>Ok. Could you (or anyone else?) tell me more about this, so I can
>>take this into account?
>
>Picture this:
[...]
Not quite, the problem is more likely to be something like this, which
Marcus Agehall also has mentioned:
roxen_module.pike:
object B;
f() {
references B;
}
void start()
{
Thread.thread_create(f);
}
When Roxen loads the module, it will in essence do something like:
modules += ({ (program)"roxen_module.pike"() });
modules->start();
When time comes to shutdown Roxen will do something like:
modules->stop();
map(modules, destruct);
// Other stuff...
exit(0);
The problem here is that the thread started in start() will continue
to run although its object has been destructed.
The fix is to implement a stop() in the module that makes sure that
all threads belonging to the module have terminated before returning.
>From the backtraces that you get, you should be able to identify from
where the problematic thread originated.
>This has little to do with the garbage collector, but more with when what
>variables are destroyed (explicitly) in stop() functions of e.g. class A.
True.
>Stephen.
