Gregory P. Smith added the comment: This patch makes sense to me. I've gone over the code and I cannot spot any adverse effects. I was wondering in particular if anything would be surprised to find a non-started thread in _active within the short window where that will be true but nothing appears to care about that.
You should add a comment to the code mentioning this issue and why the .set() is done after the _active insertion. After that, I'd say commit it. If you want a consistent reproducible test case for this I believe you will need to replace the Thread object's __started with a test wrapper who's set() method blocks waiting for for the fork to have happened before doing the actual set(). That is a bit tricky and may not be worth it. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue18418> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
