Subject: Re: [boost] Subject: Formal Review of Proposed Boost.Process library starts tomorrow
From: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard (jeremy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-10 13:55:06
On 02/10/2011 01:36 AM, John Bytheway wrote:
> I don't pretend to be an expert, but I thought that one could safely get
> around these sorts of problems with wait by using waitpid instead,
> rather than having to use signal handlers. Does that solution apply in
> this case?
No, there are still two problems: it is necessary then for boost.process
to have one thread waiting per child process, which is rather wasteful,
and furthermore the form of wait that waits for any (rather than a
specific) child pid cannot be used at all within the program by other
code, as otherwise that other wait call might accidentally get notified
even for a boost.process pid. Thus, any code that interoperates with
Boost.process must use the same wasteful method of waiting.