I'm thinking about a protocol which works for the current code in the libraries as well as all code that the compiler generates. Reading up on the documentation for interrupts, it looks like we should be invoking Thread.interrupted() in random places to see if we've been interrupted. Presumably we need to do something with the interrupted information as well, then though.

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Alessio Stalla <alessiostalla@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:05 PM, James Lawrence <llmjjmll@gmail.com> wrote:
> (defun test-cleanup ()
> (let* ((cleanedp nil)
> (thread (threads:make-thread
> (lambda ()
> (unwind-protect (sleep 999)
> (setf cleanedp t))))))
> (sleep 0.5)
> (threads:destroy-thread thread)
> (sleep 0.5)
> cleanedp))
>
> (test-cleanup)
>
> ABCL-1.0.0 and ABCL-0.27.0 return NIL.
>
> Other implementations I tested all return T -- Allegro, Clozure,
> LispWorks, SBCL (changing "threads" to "bordeaux-threads").
>
> Of course this isn't a bug since ABCL is free to do what it wishes.
> Does ABCL wish that?

I don't think we should wish that. It's inconsistent not only with
other Lisp implementations, but with Java thread semantics as well.
The problems are two: first, that destroy-thread doesn't really
destroy the thread, it just sets a flag, so the sleep is not aborted
(when it ends, the next form is not evaluated and the thread just
terminates); second, that sleep swallows the ThreadInterrupted
exception anyway, so even if it were interrupted, the thread would
then continue normally.
I think thread-destroy should be reimplemented to call
Thread.interrupt() and that we should properly handle
InterruptedException as a Lisp condition.

_______________________________________________
armedbear-devel mailing list
armedbear-devel@common-lisp.net
http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/armedbear-devel