English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
Patch: kill() undex win32
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2004-11-12 (01:07)
From: Wesley W. Terpstra <terpstra@g...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Patch: kill() undex win32
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 06:42:04PM -0500, Christopher A. Watford wrote:
> Might I ask why 0x80 is being returned as the exit code instead of
> something from winbase.h (auto from windows.h) like:

I didn't have any particular reason for choosing that value. If you think
that STATUS_CONTROL_C_EXIT makes more sense under windows, then I'm all for
that (esp. since you knew it existed and thus more than I).

Mostly I didn't want it to be near 'user' returnable values like 0,1,2,...
and also not near syscall return values -1,... 0x80 seemed to be a good
middle ground. ;) Another suggestion might be to use the signal number
itself for the return code.

At least for me the return code is irrelevant; I just need to be able to
kill my child processes when the ocaml program quits abnormally.

> Which, while it is not the case that exactly is happening, it does let
> the user know with a fairly standard method as to what happened to
> their thread/process.

I'd like to point out that this patch can only work for child processes
created from the ocaml program. So, I think it's unlikely that there is
a user involved to interpret the CTRL-C, or even be concerned that the
process vanished.

PS. Did you try the patch? Does it work?

Wesley W. Terpstra