Comment 3 for bug 185601
Revision history for this message
| Derick Eddington (derick-eddington) wrote Re: [Bug 185601] Need to be able to test if process failed | #3 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
0e1f616
(Get the code!)
On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 04:10 +0000, Abdulaziz Ghuloum wrote:
> Question: if process returned nonblocking ports, or, if we have process-
> nonblocking to go with the rest of the nonblocking procedures, would
> that kind of solve this problem? (I still haven't found a solution)
But if you exec a process with which you do not attempt any I/O (i.e.,
because the program isn't designed to do any), there's still no way to
know if it succeeded or failed.
I'll start trying to learn what other run-time systems have done about
this.