From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Interruptible wait_for_termination Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 05:48:46 +0200 Message-ID: <83390gyf35.fsf@gnu.org> References: <838va9xpqs.fsf@gnu.org> <509EC7C4.1050707@cs.ucla.edu> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1352605727 9961 80.91.229.3 (11 Nov 2012 03:48:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 03:48:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 11 04:48:57 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TXOXZ-0005BV-65 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 04:48:57 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60118 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TXOXP-0006uO-RR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:48:47 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:49910) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TXOXK-0006u6-Jg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:48:45 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TXOXH-0004Nl-FF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:48:42 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:64370) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TXOXH-0004NV-6y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:48:39 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MDB00I001111D00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 05:48:37 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MDB00HJX190QSA0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 05:48:37 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <509EC7C4.1050707@cs.ucla.edu> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.166 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:154816 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 13:31:48 -0800 > From: Paul Eggert > CC: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > On 11/10/2012 10:43 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > It seems that the only way to interrupt that blocking call is > > to deliver a signal to Emacs, either SIGINT or some other signal that > > would interrupt waitpid. > > Doesn't SIGIO do the trick? Maybe it does, but when I considered this possibility, it sounded incredible to me that every keystroke would normally interrupt a call to waitpid. Aren't there gobs of programs out there who call waitpid without setting up a loop that checks for EINTR? But if you say this is the case, then OK. Thanks for the explanation.