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, <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> 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, <[email protected]> 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 > >
