From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net   
      
   In article <10gv701$1klbu$1@dont-email.me>,   
   Simon Clubley   wrote:   
   >On 2025-12-05, Dan Cross  wrote:   
   >> In article <69320352$0$673$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>,   
   >> Arne Vajhøj   wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>Usually join is sufficient.   
   >>   
   >> With pthreads, yes.  Evidently not with CMA.   
   >>   
   >> Why bother with CMA, anyway?  Just use pthreads?   
   >>   
   >   
   >In his reply to me when I asked the same question, Arne said he had   
   >a working phtreads version, but he wanted to try CMA as well because   
   >it was there.   
   >   
   >I must admit I've been guilty of the same thing at times. :-)   
      
   Ah.  Well, I guess there's nothing wrong with that.   
      
   >PS: Sometimes I even learnt something new I was not expecting...   
      
   I think that one of the challenging things about working with   
   deprecated interfaces like this, particularly those that aren't   
   very well documented anymore, is that one's intuition from their   
   replacements may not be accurate.  I believe that's the case   
   here; behavior one reasonably expects from working with pthreads   
   is not consistent with the actual behavior of CMA.   
      
   	- Dan C.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)