I don't think there is a bad consequence for repeatedly checking the status of a terminated child process with exponential backoff. Its just really weird that you would ever do that if your OS works correctly. And IMHO it hurts code maintainability. Not to mention debugging, assuming that you are on a sane platform when you are stepping through that.
I agree that this is more of a philosophical objection than something that directly affects functionality. If somebody else is happy with that then fine. It just doesn't feel right for me to put my stamp of approval on it. On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 1:45:32 PM UTC+1, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > On 04/24/2013 02:37 PM, Volker Braun wrote: > > For the record, I disagree with the approach to both #14371 and #14460 > > in that fugly workarounds to fundamental bugs in Solaris or a particular > > gcc version are applied liberally to, basically, everyone. Sure, > > sometimes it is necessary to work around bugs, but that should be a > > special case and not the generic code path. > > Do you know of actual bad consequences of the approach taken at #14371 > or #14460? I would not apply ugly workarounds to everyone *if* they have > bad consequences. If those workarounds don't really influence existing > working setups (which is the case with the mentioned patches), then > what's the problem? In this case, it's better to be safe and apply the > workaround on all systems. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
