This is the mail archive of the java-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: RFA PATCH: Fix PosixProcess some more...

David Daney wrote:

The loop is fairly tight, it really just contains sigsuspend() and
waitpid(). Also when using sigsuspend(), you cannot tell which signal
fired, so we have to do the waitpid() anyhow.


Well, sigchld_hander() could set a flag. That might also make the whole interaction a bit clearer? But, I'll leave it up to you.

There is a reason that the test case does this.



Sure. However, I'd like to avoid even a 10 second delay in the test suite. It may not seem like much, but as the test suite grows and more such tests got introduced, the time would add up - time that doesn't get smaller as hardware gets faster.

Also, the failure mode for this test is, I'd imagine, pretty non-deterministic, and thats probably reason alone not to include it.

Regards

Bryce

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]