This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub ,
and is currently read-only.
For more information,
see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.
| Author | Rhamphoryncus |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Rhamphoryncus, amaury.forgeotdarc, jnoller, mikemccand, pitrou, tzot |
| Date | 2008年07月09日.17:46:18 |
| SpamBayes Score | 5.790005e-09 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1215625581.02.0.054909456872.issue874900@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
In general I suggest replacing the lock with a new lock, rather than trying to release the existing one. Releasing *might* work in this case, only because it's really a semaphore underneath, but it's still easier to think about by just replacing. I also suggest deleting _active and recreating it with only the current thread. I don't understand how test_join_on_shutdown could succeed. The main thread shouldn't be marked as done.. well, ever. The test should hang. I suspect test_join_in_forked_process should call os.waitpid(childpid) so it doesn't exit early, which would cause the original Popen.wait() call to exit before the output is produced. The same problem of test_join_on_shutdown also applies. Ditto for test_join_in_forked_from_thread. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2008年07月09日 17:46:21 | Rhamphoryncus | set | spambayes_score: 5.79e-09 -> 5.790005e-09 recipients: + Rhamphoryncus, mikemccand, tzot, amaury.forgeotdarc, pitrou, jnoller |
| 2008年07月09日 17:46:21 | Rhamphoryncus | set | spambayes_score: 5.79e-09 -> 5.79e-09 messageid: <1215625581.02.0.054909456872.issue874900@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2008年07月09日 17:46:20 | Rhamphoryncus | link | issue874900 messages |
| 2008年07月09日 17:46:19 | Rhamphoryncus | create | |