From: Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>
Date: 2006-09-19T04:35:10+09:00
Subject: Re: Nested threading? implications to timeout()

On Sep 16, 2006, at 12:40 AM, Arnaud Bergeron wrote:
> On 9/15/06, Geff Geff <boing@boing.com> wrote:
>> Clearly by killing, what I would call the "parent thread", did not  
>> kill
>> the child thread.  And this would be okay, I think, except that  
>> the way
>> the timeout class works is by starting a thread and killing it if it
>> doesn't complete in the right amount of time.  So if I were to wrap
>> anything in "timeout() {}" it's possible that something else calls
>> timeout inside that and then the thread is still alive, until some  
>> later
>> time.  Is this normal?
>
> Reading the timeout code I see that it creates a watcher thread to
> provide the timeout.  The block is executed on the current thread and
> interruption is provided by raising an exception (from the watcher
> tread) when the timeout expires.  At the end of the method there is an
> ensure to kill the watcher thread in any case so it would not
> encounter the case you describe.
>
>> Can this cause memory leak?
>
> Due do what I described in the previous paragraph nested timeouts
> won't cause any kind of leak.

Nested timeouts have a different problem:

http://blog.segment7.net/articles/2006/04/11/care-and-feeding-of- 
timeout-timeout

-- 
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://blog.segment7.net
This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant

http://trackmap.robotcoop.com