[M3devel] join twice?

[Jay K]

To me..with a Win32 background..join means "wait for thread to finish".

And there is a separate action "get thread result".

You could consider these one merged operation "wait for thread to finish and get its result".

In either case, it is reasonable to allow it multiple times.

Waiting for a thread to finish that has already finished is just fast.

Getting a thread result that you already got is also easy albeit usually unnecessary.

 

Now, if the operation is "wait for thread to finish, get its result, and lose track of its result",

that isn't idempotent.

 

I'm torn. The existing implementations all either support multiple join or have to go out of

their way to prevent it. Yet Thread.i3 has been commented so presumably forever.

 

 - Jay

 


Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 09:36:23 -0500
From: rcoleburn at scires.com
To: m3devel at elegosoft.com
Subject: Re: [M3devel] join twice?


I think the comment in the code is correct.
 
Semantically, it doesn't make sense to join a thread more than once.  Join is the compliment to Fork.  With fork, one thread becomes two.  With Join, two threads become one.  After they've become one, the 2nd thread is no more, so you can't join to it anymore.
 
IMO, the implementation should enforce this behavior.  What would be the "benefit" of allowing more than one join?  What does it "mean" to join a "dead thread"?
 
Regards,
Randy Coleburn

>>> Tony Hosking <hosking at cs.purdue.edu> 11/2/2009 11:54 PM >>>




OK, sure.  Fair enough.


On 2 Nov 2009, at 16:43, Jay K wrote:

 > (Whether the implementation actually prohibits it or not is an implementation decision.)  

Tony, I'm sympathetic to the smaller version but I think it is wrong.
"It is a checked runtime error to call this more than once for any t"
is a much different/stronger statement than e.g.
"it is implementation defined what happens if you call join more than once for any t".
The printed Reactor 4.1 docs have the same comment as current Thread.i3.
 
You know, ideally if I write:
Thread.Join(t);
Thread.Join(t);

and it works today on any system, it will continue to work on all systems.
I think "implementation defined" is something Modula-3 tries to have less of.
 
On the other hand, I think if we foresee it to work trivially on all
forseeable implementations, we can change the interface by removing the comment.
Win32 WaitForSingleObject(thread, INFINITE) is allowed multiple times, though
that isn't the current implementation.

 - Jay
 


From: hosking at cs.purdue.edu
To: jay.krell at cornell.edu
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:59:36 -0500
CC: m3devel at elegosoft.com
Subject: Re: [M3devel] join twice?

I don't know that there ever was a mandate that join can only be called once on a given thread.  But, given that pthread_join is undefined when called more than once on the same thread we probably want to retain the comment.  (Whether the implementation actually prohibits it or not is an implementation decision.)  The point is that we should be free to give the error in some later implementation, so as to not to restrict what semantics the implementation must support. 





Antony Hosking | Associate Professor | Computer Science | Purdue University
305 N. University Street | West Lafayette | IN 47907 | USA
Office +1 765 494 6001 | Mobile +1 765 427 5484



On 2 Nov 2009, at 10:11, Jay K wrote:

Thread.i3:
 
 
PROCEDURE Join(t: T): REFANY;
(* Wait until "t" has terminated and return its result. It is a
   checked runtime error to call this more than once for any "t". *)

 
ThreadWin32.m3:
 
 
PROCEDURE Join(t: T): REFANY =
  VAR res: REFANY;
  BEGIN
    LOCK t DO
      IF t.joined THEN Die(ThisLine(), "attempt to join with thread twice"); END;
      WHILE NOT t.completed DO Wait(t, t.join) END;
      res := t.result;
      t.result := NIL;
      t.joined := TRUE;
      t.join := NIL;
    END;
    RETURN res;
  END Join;
 
PROCEDURE AlertJoin(t: T): REFANY RAISES {Alerted} = similar


ThreadPThread.m3:
 

PROCEDURE Join (t: T): REFANY =
  BEGIN
    LOCK t DO
      WHILE NOT t.completed DO Wait(t, t.join) END;
    END;
    RETURN t.result;
  END Join;
 
PROCEDURE AlertJoin (t: T): REFANY RAISES {Alerted} = similar

 
Should we just loosen the comment and go with the simpler pthread version?
I'd like Win32 and pthread to be more similar where possible, to ease maintenance.
 
 
 - Jay


 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://m3lists.elegosoft.com/pipermail/m3devel/attachments/20091103/3cb1580c/attachment-0002.html>