https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038
--- Comment #13 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Author: jb
Date: Tue May 21 15:24:30 2019
New Revision: 271470
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271470&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libfortran/90038: Document new wait=.false. implementation
2019-05-21 Ja
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038
--- Comment #12 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Author: jb
Date: Tue May 21 15:17:44 2019
New Revision: 271468
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271468&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libfortran/90038: Document new wait=.false. implementation
2019-05-21 Ja
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038
--- Comment #11 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Author: jb
Date: Mon May 20 17:43:05 2019
New Revision: 271427
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271427&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libfortran/90038 Use posix_spawn, reap dead children when wait=.false.
Ba
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038
--- Comment #9 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Author: jb
Date: Sun May 19 19:38:11 2019
New Revision: 271384
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271384&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libfortran/90038 Reap dead children when wait=.false.
When using posix_spa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038
--- Comment #8 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Actually, wasn't this simple as the above patch broke the synchronous version.
Need to think more what to do.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038
--- Comment #7 from Janne Blomqvist ---
This should fix it:
--- a/libgfortran/intrinsics/execute_command_line.c
+++ b/libgfortran/intrinsics/execute_command_line.c
@@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ see the files COPYING3 and COPYING.RUNTIME respectively. If
no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 07:35:46PM +, jb at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038
>
> --- Comment #5 from Janne Blomqvist ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment #4)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038
--- Comment #5 from Janne Blomqvist ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #4)
> What does 'it' refer to? fork() is leaving a zombie?
> posix_spawn() is leaving a zombie?
posix_spawn. Though I guess the old fork() code suffers from the same issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038
--- Comment #3 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Further testing revealed that it leaves zombie processes around as the child is
never wait()'ed for. E.g.
program cmd
implicit none
call execute_command_line("echo hi", wait=.FALSE.)
call sleep(30)
e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038
--- Comment #2 from Janne Blomqvist ---
Author: jb
Date: Fri May 17 18:18:04 2019
New Revision: 271340
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271340&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libfortran/90038: Use posix_spawn instead of fork
fork() semantics can be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
14 matches
Mail list logo