Message139091
| Author | neologix |
|---|
| Recipients | mouad, neologix, vstinner |
|---|
| Date | 2011-06-25.15:59:02 |
|---|
| SpamBayes Score | 1.0582342e-08 |
|---|
| Marked as misclassified | No |
|---|
| Message-id | <1309017543.71.0.579565358621.issue12410@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
|---|
| In-reply-to | |
|---|
| Content |
|---|
It's a little bit more complicated than that:- signals and threads don't mix well together- this will make syscalls fail with EINTR- the old SIGALRM handler is lost- etcIn short, don't use signals.I'm not sure there's a reliable way to write such a general-purpose wrapper (usually one can use select() with a timeout or spawn a subprocess and use communicate's timeout to achieve this kind of things).In your use case (issue#12157), I think that letting the test block is fine, since:- there's no easy way to add a timeout (but you could spawn a new interpreter and use communicate with a timeout if you really wanted to)- it will be caught by the faulthandler module- a test killed by faulthandler's timeout is more interesting to fix that a "common" failed test ;-) |
| History |
|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
|---|
| 2011-06-25 15:59:03 | neologix | set | recipients: +neologix,vstinner,mouad | | 2011-06-25 15:59:03 | neologix | set | messageid: <1309017543.71.0.579565358621.issue12410@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> | | 2011-06-25 15:59:03 | neologix | link | issue12410 messages | | 2011-06-25 15:59:03 | neologix | create | |
|