Index
> Windows > why eax==-1?Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 |
| Author |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar
No, I don't think it is reasonable to expect that someone doesn't use something that is allowed. That exactly the case of bad programming.
|
|||
13 Jan 2010, 18:59 |
|
|
revolution
Allowed maybe, but certainly not preferred. Why risk having your app blamed for causing problems? For idealistic reasons?
And so easy to solve. |
|||
|
13 Jan 2010, 19:03 |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar
revolution wrote: For idealistic reasons? 
But don't be afraid, I won't use ExitThread for main thread in any standard fasm examples. "Preferred" still means something to me.  |
|||
|
13 Jan 2010, 19:12 |
|
|
revolution
Tomasz Grysztar wrote: "Preferred" still means something to me. |
|||
|
13 Jan 2010, 19:19 |
|
|
Borsuc
But who said a process with one thread is just the thread either? Maybe it has additional info that, if the system doesn't handle it when the last thread is closed, you should use ExitProcess for that too.
I agree that it is preferred to find out "buggy" threads created, because otherwise you're just using garbage collector without solving the problem, but expecting ExitThread to clean up the process, not just the thread, is also expecting garbage collector to do the job!  |
|||
|
13 Jan 2010, 22:48 |
|
|
Tomasz Grysztar
Borsuc wrote: I agree that it is preferred to find out "buggy" threads created, because otherwise you're just using garbage collector without solving the problem, but expecting ExitThread to clean up the process, not just the thread, is also expecting garbage collector to do the job! Expecting this is based on the WinAPI documentation, that says:
ExitThread wrote: If the thread is the last thread in the process when this function is called, the thread's process is also terminated. |
|||
|
14 Jan 2010, 08:55 |
|
|
Borsuc
Oops
 _________________ Previously known as The_Grey_Beast |
|||
|
14 Jan 2010, 15:32 |
|
| Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|