I’m actually more curious if there’s any defined behavior for this or what
kind of behavior I should expect.
I was doing this in a program (I consider calling SDL_KillThread() on a
process that’s already ended to be a bug, BTW) and it would tend to hang
shortly after the call to SDL_KillThread(). Is this what I should expect or
was I just lucky that my machine didn’t explode?
I would suspect that you were lucky. SDL_KillThread() has been removed in SDL
1.3 due it it never being stable/reliable. Except under an error scenario
you shouldn’t really use SDL_KillThread() in your code and instead use a
signalling method with Mutex, Semaphore, Condition etc.
If you still really want to know I would suggest looking at the SDL_thread.c
source file.
Leeor Dicker wrote:>
I’m actually more curious if there’s any defined behavior for this or what
kind of behavior I should expect.I was doing this in a program (I consider calling SDL_KillThread() on a
process that’s already ended to be a bug, BTW) and it would tend to hang
shortly after the call to SDL_KillThread(). Is this what I should expect
or
was I just lucky that my machine didn’t explode?
SDL mailing list
SDL at lists.libsdl.org
http://lists.libsdl.org/listinfo.cgi/sdl-libsdl.org
–
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/SDL_KillThread()-on-a-thread-that-has-already-returned.-tp25014998p25027539.html
Sent from the SDL mailing list archive at Nabble.com.