Comment 7 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 | #7 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
0e1f616
(Get the code!)
On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 05:58 +0000, Abdulaziz Ghuloum wrote:
> Not necessarily. If this is the only way to solve it, then, we have
> to solve it. But I don't see (off the top of my head) how catching
> SIGCHLD would solve it. Usually you catch SIGCHLD so that it
> collects the dead children if you don't want to wait on them
> yourself.
Right. My memory is vague about SIGCHLD. I meant more generally, I
wonder if POSIX signals aren't the only way to test if the process
failed? There might be another signal or there might be an additional
code that goes along with SIGCHLD. I just Googled "fork exec child race
condition" which seems to yield a number of promising links I'll be
reading (maybe slowly).
BTW, I think a process-nonblocking which returns nonblocking ports would
be useful anyways. One of my longer-term goals of being into programing
is to use/make actors-like systems which use event-loops in different
processes communicating and async I/O is needed/good for that.