On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Nala Ginrut <nalaginrut@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 2:57 AM, Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello :)
>>
>> On Fri 24 Feb 2012 04:00, Nala Ginrut <nalaginrut@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > I think I could use pipes to handle some sub-process rather than do it
>> > with fork manually. But I must create a daemon, it can't avoid to use
>> > fork, will this circumstance cause problems if I use threads after it?
>>
>> Hummm.  Very good question.  I started to answer this, but ended up
>> committing the hack I mailed before, then found this reply now.
>>
>> Basically, if you try to daemonize with fork, you would need to do it
>> very early, before your program makes any threads.  In master, Guile now
>> enforces that condition.
>>
>>
> So, this suggestion implies primitive-fork would be kept?
>
>
>> Note that the first time your program calls `sigaction', Guile spawns a
>> thread to handle signals.  You'd need to fork before installing signal
>> handlers.
>>
>>
> Fortunately. ;-)
>
>
>> Another thing to think about is libgc.  In the "master" branch, libgc
>> itself can spawn threads -- for example, a thread for doing parallel
>> marking.
>>
>> There is a tension here between making things work, and making them
>> correct.  It is possible to get fork + threads mostly working on glibc
>> platforms -- for example, we could restart signal-handling and finalizer
>> threads in primitive-fork.  But it is not possible to make the use of
>> `primitive-fork' correct, in general, in the presence of threads.
>>
>>
> I think all I need primitive-fork is just to daemonize, and I can try to
> do it in the very early.
> Moreover, primitive-fork would be restricted to be used for daemon to
> anybody.
> Considering this point, why not add a "daemonize" proc instead of
> "primitive-fork"?
>

Well, I missed something.
'primitive-fork' shouldn't be removed directly according to
previous discussion, unless the user chosen ptheads. If they do not use
threads, then primitive-fork would be useful, is that right?


> Cheers,
>>
>> Andy
>> --
>> http://wingolog.org/
>>
>
>