From: Martin Wille (mw8329_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-12 05:12:56
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> 1. In my experience catching signals did not cause any deadlocks in 99% of
> cases. IMO proper reporting prevail.
The problem is that the deadlocks only happen if a test raises a signal.
This is usually not a case. In automated regression testing (like
Boost's), at some point, there will be such a deadlock and testing
stalls until someone realizes that a test is deadlocked. Then that
person will spend quite some time in trying to find out what happened.
> 2. Opting to ignore system signals will cause halt for regression testing in
> some cases (unless we change the setup explicitly)
No, it's the other way round. The UB causes halts in regression testing.
I experienced dozens of these incidences. As I said, I wasted days of
CPU and human time on this problem.
How does not mapping a signal to exceptions and letting the process die
instead cause halt for regression testing?
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk