[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [DotGNU]Safely implementing Thread.Abort
From: |
Gopal V |
Subject: |
RE: [DotGNU]Safely implementing Thread.Abort |
Date: |
Thu, 20 May 2004 01:07:25 -0700 (PDT) |
Hi,
> > > Outputting abort check instructions on every
> backward
> > > branch is OK with me, as long as you only do it
> in
> > > programs that use Thread.Abort. This can be
> detected
> > > by the loader (any assembly with a MemberRef to
> > > Thread.Abort is a candidate).
> >
....
Having every backward jump check for thread->aborted
would be a initial "make it work" solution.
Not to mention that we could have an
"--expect-no-thread-aborts" which would
avoid this check ? . for example, when running
pnetmark ? ;-)
> I pc register is specified explicitly. Both windows
> and some unixes do
> provide a CONTEXT/signalcontext that will give you
> the values of these
> registers at the time of interrupt. Is it not
> possible to simply restore
> the appropriate registers and then jump to the right
> place in the new
> abort-aware code?
That would be a GCC + (x86/arm/ppc) specific hack ,
which would still not speed it up on all platforms.
But my question is whether , that much work for
just speeding it up in 3 MAJOR platforms is
worth the effort ;)
Gopal
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Domains Claim yours for only $14.70/year
http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer
- RE: [DotGNU]Safely implementing Thread.Abort, (continued)
- Re: [DotGNU]Safely implementing Thread.Abort, Russell Stuart, 2004/05/19
- RE: [DotGNU]Safely implementing Thread.Abort, Thong (Tum) Nguyen, 2004/05/20
- RE: [DotGNU]Safely implementing Thread.Abort, Thong (Tum) Nguyen, 2004/05/20
- RE: [DotGNU]Safely implementing Thread.Abort,
Gopal V <=
- RE: [DotGNU]Safely implementing Thread.Abort, Thong (Tum) Nguyen, 2004/05/20