On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 3:51 PM, nathan binkert <[email protected]> wrote: >> - Is there any reason for SIGTERM et al (or some subset of them) to >> cause #4 instead of #3? > Hard to say. I never use -k with tests (only when trying to get > through compiler stuff), but I generally hate when programs don't > terminate on SIGINT (Ctrl-C). Of course, I could just not ask for any > tests to run when using -k and it wouldn't be a problem. Then again, > a quick succession of SIGINTs will probably still terminate the > program since SCons itself might catch one of them. Then again, if > SCons forks a subprocess, but you send a CTRL-C to the terminal, who > gets it? I honestly don't remember. In the shell, it would go to > whatever process is currently running, but I think that in that case, > the shell might actually be forwarding the signal. So, would python > (scons) get it, or m5?
OK, well I just unintentionally found that scons doesn't reliably terminate on ^C even outside of the regressions (like when compiling or doing the autoconf stuff) so sticking with the current plan is at least no worse than that. Steve _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
