From: Jurko GospodnetiÄ (jurko.gospodnetic_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-07 05:57:30
> First a question -- what is the 259 value? You mentioned MSDN article,
> do you have a link?
(or any other MSDN documentation page for the GetExitCodeProcess()
Windows API function).
Here's a quote:
> Important The GetExitCodeProcess function returns a valid error code
> defined by the application only after the thread terminates. Therefore,
> an application should not use STILL_ACTIVE (259) as an error code. If a
> thread returns STILL_ACTIVE (259) as an error code, applications that
> test for this value could interpret it to mean that the thread is still
> running and continue to test for the completion of the thread after the
> thread has terminated, which could put the application into an infinite
>> -/* waits for a single child process command to complete, or the
>> - timeout, whichever is first. returns the index of the completed
>> - command, or -1. */
>> +/* waits for a single child process command to complete, or the timeout,
>> + whichever comes first. returns the index of the completed command, or -1. */
> If we're cleaning the comments, how about this:
> /* Waits for a single child process command to complete, or the timeout,
> whichever comes first. Returns the index of the completed command in the
> cmdtab array, or -1. */
>> + /* wait for a child to complete, or for our timeout window to expire */
>> + wait_api_result = WaitForMultipleObjects( num_active, active_handles,
>> + FALSE, timeoutMillis );
>> + if
>> + (
>> + ( WAIT_OBJECT_0 <= wait_api_result ) &&
>> + ( wait_api_result < WAIT_OBJECT_0 + num_active )
>> + )
> Funny indentation you have here :-) Can opening paren go to the same
> line as "if" and closing one don't go on a separate line?
Ok, I have changed it to
if ( ( WAIT_OBJECT_0 <= wait_api_result ) &&
( wait_api_result < WAIT_OBJECT_0 + num_active ) )
I actually prefer the original style in C-style code where functions
are longer than 5-10 lines, but... :-)
> From my limited knowledge of windows API, this seems to be OK. Can you please
> commit the patch?
Ok, all the changes you noted applied (including updating the commit
comment with the appropriate MSDN link) and the patch committed.
Changeset link: http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/44087
Thanks for the review!
Boost-Build list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk