Pádraig Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote: >> I suspended a 'make check' run, and when I resumed it I was not >> surprised to see this particular test fail. >> Then I kicked myself for not thinking to use coreutils' own >> new timeout program before this. > > I presume you mean suspended the machine here, rather than > suspended the job? If just suspending the job, timeout will > still fail as the alarm will keep counting down in the kernel > (and will be sent to timeout when it's running again).
Ahh. Thanks for the reminder. > I.E. timeout currently doesn't handle a SIGSTOP or SIGTSTP specially, > as I was thinking it should count down system running time rather > than job running time, as that is dependent on many factors. > Is this correct? IMHO, that's the right default. However, this use case suggests that an option to make timeout count job-running-time would be a welcome feature. > Using timeout is a better solution in any case, > as it will terminate the rm command more quickly. > > thanks, > Pádraig. > > p.s. don't all posix shells support $((..)) As far as I know, yes. > I.E. $(($(date +%s) - start) rather than using $(expr $(date +%s) - $start) > I.E. if we're relying on $() shouldn't we also use $(()) ? Yes. that's more readable. I'm slowly getting used to being able to assume a POSIX shell. I'd welcome a patch to update everything. I wonder if it's worth adding a test for this to m4/posix-shell.m4. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
