[test] Ignoring SIGCHLD for signal codes other than CLD_EXITED
I could not find a response to the following message: http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2008/09/40618.php , which proposes to modify ignore_sigchild() implementation to account for a proposed BOOST_TEST_IGNORE_SIGCHLD preprocessor switch. I am seconding this request. Has it ever been considered? Or was it the message simply went unnoticed? Thanks, Gevorg
On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 12:26:05 +0200, Gevorg Voskanyan
I could not find a response to the following message: http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2008/09/40618.php , which proposes to modify ignore_sigchild() implementation to account for a proposed BOOST_TEST_IGNORE_SIGCHLD preprocessor switch. I am seconding this request. Has it ever been considered? Or was it the message simply went unnoticed?
Gevorg, I didn't test Boost.Process yet with Boost 1.38.0. As Boost.Test is not mentioned on http://www.boost.org/users/news/version_1_38_0 I guess there hasn't been any change though. But I also still think Boost.Test should be adapted here (as I didn't have time lately to continue developing Boost.Process it wasn't an urgent issue for me though). Boris
Hi Boris, Boris Schaeling wrote:
On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 12:26:05 +0200, Gevorg Voskanyan wrote:
I could not find a response to the following message: http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2008/09/40618.php , which proposes to modify ignore_sigchild() implementation to account for a
proposed BOOST_TEST_IGNORE_SIGCHLD preprocessor switch.
I am seconding this request. Has it ever been considered? Or was it the message simply went unnoticed?
Gevorg,
I didn't test Boost.Process yet with Boost 1.38.0. As Boost.Test is not mentioned on http://www.boost.org/users/news/version_1_38_0 I guess there hasn't been any change though.
Yes, the proposed change did not make it into trunk either.
But I also still think Boost.Test should be adapted here (as I didn't have time lately to continue developing Boost.Process it wasn't an urgent issue for me though).
I need this change in order to progress with upgrading boost for a project I'm working on at my company. So this is kind of more urgent of an issue for me :-) Gennadiy, could you please tell us your opinion about this change? Can it be applied to Boost.Test?
Boris
Best Regards, Gevorg
Gevorg Voskanyan
Gennadiy, could you please tell us your opinion about this change? Can it be applied to Boost.Test?
I'll reconsider the issue in next couple days and get back to you. Gennadiy
Gevorg Voskanyan wrote:
To: boost-users@lists.boost.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 11:34:51 AM Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [test] Ignoring SIGCHLD for signal codes other thanCLD_EXITED
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
I'll reconsider the issue in next couple days and get back to you.
Gennadiy
Thanks Gennadiy
Best Regards, Gevorg
Any updates on this? Thanks, Gevorg
Gevorg Voskanyan wrote:
To: boost-users@lists.boost.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 11:34:51 AM Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [test] Ignoring SIGCHLD for signal codes other thanCLD_EXITED
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
I'll reconsider the issue in next couple days and get back to you.
Gennadiy
Thanks Gennadiy
Best Regards, Gevorg
Any updates on this?
Thanks, Gevorg
Ping ?
I've checked in a bit different fix. The env. var name is BOOST_TEST_IGNORE_SIGCHLD Gennadiy
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
I've checked in a bit different fix.
The env. var name is BOOST_TEST_IGNORE_SIGCHLD
Gennadiy
Hi Gennadiy, Thanks for the followup. With this change it failed to compile with BOOST_TEST_IGNORE_SIGCHLD defined, as signal_action has no default constructor. I guess the definition of m_CHLD_action should be wrapped with #ifndef BOOST_TEST_IGNORE_SIGCHLD as well. After this modification the compilation went successful with -DBOOST_TEST_IGNORE_SIGCHLD, and my original problem disappeared too. Thanks again. Best Regards, Gevorg
Gevorg Voskanyan wrote:
Thanks for the followup. With this change it failed to compile with BOOST_TEST_IGNORE_SIGCHLD defined, as signal_action has no default constructor. I guess the definition of m_CHLD_action should be wrapped with #ifndef BOOST_TEST_IGNORE_SIGCHLD as well. After this modification the compilation went successful with -DBOOST_TEST_IGNORE_SIGCHLD, and my original problem disappeared too. Thanks again.
Should work now. Gennadiy
participants (3)
-
Boris Schaeling -
Gennadiy Rozental -
Gevorg Voskanyan