[External] : Re: Ephemeral threads

[Alex Otenko]

Oh, ok, I confused it with something else. I recall dealing with a system
that would panic or report that there were fibers that were no longer going
to make progress.

I think there are plenty of designs with generators, iterators and async
where non-termination is not a bug.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2026, 11:51 Viktor Klang, <viktor.klang at oracle.com> wrote:

> Yes, just search for "forgotten sender abandoned receiver".
> On 2026-01-12 12:22, Robert Engels wrote:
>
> That is not true. Go routines do not “clean up” when they cannot make
> progress due to no producers. Go leaks due to this are very common.
>
> On Jan 12, 2026, at 4:05 AM, Alex Otenko <oleksandr.otenko at gmail.com>
> <oleksandr.otenko at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 
> I'd say it's not even clear why that'd constitute a bug. Whole systems are
> built on go-rourines and continuations getting GCed.
>
> I think there certainly is a clash between the need to track life cycle of
> something (tell threads to terminate) in a system where life cycle of
> things is not tracked (because GC).
>
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2026, 09:58 Viktor Klang, <viktor.klang at oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> How do you find the bug?
>>
>> On 2026-01-12 05:36, robert engels wrote:
>> > Why not just fix your design to ensure the proper behavior?
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> √
>>
>>
>> Viktor Klang
>> Software Architect, Java Platform Group
>> Oracle
>>
>> --
> Cheers,
> √
>
>
> Viktor Klang
> Software Architect, Java Platform Group
> Oracle
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/loom-dev/attachments/20260113/c18b9b6d/attachment.htm>