Peter Prymmer wrote:
> Charles Lane wrote:
>
> !BTW, I don't expect this to go into the current release-candidate that
> !Jarkko is gearing up for, there's just too large a potential for
> !adding test failures in a wide variety of platforms.
> I thought so too, but who knows? A lot of other tests have
> recently gone in.
> One other thing to consider: add the usual
> BEGIN { use Config; } type trickery and skip the test
> C<if $Config{'d_waitpid'} ne 'define'>. Would this
> be worthwhile? Would it inadvertantly skip platforms that
> have written their own version of Perl's waitpid() that
> does not necessarily call a C RTL waitpid()?
We have our own version of waitpid, but we have d_waitpid = 'define'.
Looking at util.c, it seems that there are #ifdef'ed sections
depending on whether HAVE_WAITPID or HAVE_WAIT4.
I strongly suspect that the answer is "it depends", and would really
like to hand this off to Michael Schwern, since this multi-platform
testing stuff is really his forte.
--
Drexel University \V --Chuck Lane
======]---------->--------*------------<-------[===========
(215) 895-1545 _/ \ Particle Physics
FAX: (215) 895-5934 /\ /~~~~~~~~~~~ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
