The only thing that I do not see here ... is that usually the thread, before dying, needs to in some way signal a waiting parent that it has failed.
You are suggesting that the children signal their parent. Inter-thread communication with a bandwidth of a whole 1-bit.
What would the parent do with the knowledge that 'one of its kids has died'? With that 1 bit bandwidth you cannot even communicate which child has died.
A bit like a station announcer telling you: "a train arrived or departed".
And that is ignoring the fact that inter-thread signalling doesn't work as there is no way to distinguish the source of the signal -- inter-thread or inter-process -- never mind which thread. In addition, every thread within the process that has a signal handler defined, will receive every signal regardless of where it originated from.
All a little pointless when you have the unlimited bandwidth of the return from the join.
I just wonder why you felt the need to suggest this when you've obviously not even attempted to think through the implications, much less actually tried it.
In reply to Re^2: Threads Timeout
by BrowserUk
in thread Threads Timeout
by Gary Yang
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |