On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 00:39:21 -0400, Magnus Jonsson wrote: > >1) It adds some new exit codes for internal usage, paraphrasing the > >comments, > > -1 for fork() failure > > -2 for pipe(), > > -3 execvp_no_vtalarm() > > Dut does this mean we're counting on the programs themselves never > > exiting with these codes? > > exec_extern returns process id of the newly launched child process, or one > of those error codes if it fails. There used to be no/little error > checking here.
Oops! I just realised in the shower that those were process ids you were returning, not exit codes. (Which makes questions 1 and 2 rather nonsensical; sorry about that). > doesn't carry with it any exit code, because no program was run. > > >3) I'm a bit nervous about catching ExitFailure at main - it seems like > > this is something we would want to bubble up. How do you know this > > doesn't misreport ExitFailures thrown by darcs itself? > > It is better than the current status I think - right now these failures > pass unseen and if here is a failure, the desired side effects never take > place. This way darcs realizes that there's a problem and bails out. Darcs > itself shouldn't throw any ExecFailure. Only Exec.hs should throw > ExecFailure. Oh, I see; that is a new exception type _Exec_Failure, hence the catchDyn, not ExitFailure, which for that matter probably doesn't even exist (exitFailure). Consider me less nervous. A new question for you 5) Why use bug? This indicates that darcs itself is broken; is an ExecFailure an indication that darcs is broken? All the best, -- Eric Kow http://www.loria.fr/~kow PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9 Merci de corriger mon français.
pgpVs5HhmwWmk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/darcs-devel
