From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,8893269a4640c798 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-27 19:45:30 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-out1.nntp.be!propagator2-sterling!news-in-sterling.newsfeed.com!tdsnet-transit!newspeer.tds.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: terminate applications Date: 27 Jul 2003 21:45:26 -0500 Organization: Berbee Information Networks Corporation Message-ID: References: <3F17DF3C.4080204@noplace.com> <3F196773.2060809@noplace.com> <3F19F86C.9050808@attbi.com> <3F1A772F.9060708@noplace.com> <3F1AD6FB.8080806@attbi.com> <3F1BD666.6040506@noplace.com> <3F1C4DA6.3070405@attbi.com> <3F1D29E8.60107@noplace.com> <3F1D2FDC.1070402@noplace.com> In article , "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" writes: > "Larry Kilgallen" wrote in message news:q5jLYypXp6Yg@eisner.encompasserve.org... >> In article , "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" writes: >> > How many ways would you expect there to be in this "universe of program >> > terminations"? You seem to be implying that this could be huge (and thus >> > a problem). I doubt that even more than your doubt, so there ;-) >> >> It only takes two to cause a problem: > > What problem? We are talking about process/thread termination > here. > >> One set of semantics supported by one group of operating systems. >> >> Another set of semantics supported by another group of operating >> systems. > > The only ones that I know about (which exclude VMS) are pretty plain > and easy to choose from! > >> So which of those should be chosen for operating systems on which either >> set of semantics is supported by the operating system ? Certainly that >> should be part of the definition, rather than having two separate Ada >> implementations do it differently on the same operating system. Even >> a loose "do what you can" definition is inadequate in that situation. > > You'll need to provide some VMS specifics that demonstrate a real > problem. Otherwise, I fail to see a problem. >From http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/731FINAL/4527/4527pro_037.html#jun_194 Do you want to call user mode exit handlers ? Do you want to call supervisor mode exit handlers ? Do you want to call executive mode exit handlers ? Do you want to call kernel mode exit handlers ? I would expect the only exit handlers provided by Ada implementations would be in user mode, but I cannot guarantee that for all possible Ada implementations. RMS exit handlers are mostly in executive mode, although I suppose some might be in kernel mode. How much consistency do you want in the files the program had open? (Hint, it can depend on whether you were doing asynchronous output or using write-behind.) >From http://h71000.www7.hp.com/doc/731FINAL/4527/4527pro_050.html#jun_266 Do you really want to stop the process, or just the program ? Returning to DCL would be desired by most users who had invoked a program interactively, and by many who are running a program in a batch job or other command procedure environment. Or would you like to write a process dump file for later analysis ?