On 02/18/15 14:20, Laurent Bercot wrote:
On 18/02/2015 14:04, Olivier Brunel wrote:
I don't follow, what's wrong with using a fd?
It needs a convention between G and P. And I can't do that, because
G and P are not necessarily both execline commands. They are normal
Unix programs, and the
On 18/02/2015 14:55, Olivier Brunel wrote:
But isn't the whole anything = 128 will be reported as 128, and
anything higher is actually 128+signum also a convention that both needs
to agree upon?
Sure, but most commands exit 128 so that's reliable enough, and it's
a lot easier to follow than
On 18/02/2015 14:20, Peter Pentchev wrote:
[roam@straylight ~]$ perl -e 'die(foo!\n);'; echo $?
foo!
255
I think you should be ok, for the same reason why a shell is ok:
if you're using Perl, you're most likely writing your whole script
with it, especially control flow and error/crash
On 18/02/2015 11:58, Peter Pentchev wrote:
OK, so the not using the whole range of valid exit codes point rules
out my obvious reply - do what the shell does - exit 128 + signum.
Well the shell is happily ignoring the problem, but it doesn't mean
it has solved it. The shell reserves a few
On 18/02/2015 14:04, Olivier Brunel wrote:
I don't follow, what's wrong with using a fd?
It needs a convention between G and P. And I can't do that, because
G and P are not necessarily both execline commands. They are normal
Unix programs, and the whole point of execline is to have commands
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 01:58:34PM +0100, Laurent Bercot wrote:
I'm leaning more and more towards the following approach:
- child crashed: exit 128 + signal number
- child exited with 128 or more: exit 128
- else: exit the child's exit code.
Assuming normal commands never exit more
I'm leaning more and more towards the following approach:
- child crashed: exit 128 + signal number
- child exited with 128 or more: exit 128
- else: exit the child's exit code.
Assuming normal commands never exit more than 127, that
reports the whole information to the immediate parent,
