[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#71477: 30.0.50; Lock files are not deleted on Windows 98
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#71477: 30.0.50; Lock files are not deleted on Windows 98 |
Date: |
Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:10:50 +0300 |
> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:07:52 -0700
> Cc: 71477@debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
>
>
> On 2024-06-12 01:25, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
> > - if (! c_isdigit (dot[1]))
> > + if (! (c_isdigit (dot[1])
> > + /* Windows 9X report negative PID values. */
> > + || (dot[1] == '-' && c_isdigit (dot[2]))))
>
> Faster is "if (! c_isdigit[(dot[1] == '-') + 1])", as it avoids a
> conditional branch on most platforms.
OK.
> > - else if (0 < pid && pid <= TYPE_MAXIMUM (pid_t)
> > + else if (pid != -1 && pid <= TYPE_MAXIMUM (pid_t)
> > && (kill (pid, 0) >= 0 || errno == EPERM)
>
> This looks dubious for most systems, where 'kill' has special behavior
> when pid < -1 or pid == 0; it tests a process group. That's not the test
> we want here, since we want to check whether Emacs can be sent a signal,
> not whether any process in its process group can be sent a signal (this
> can be valid even after Emacs has exited). The code should use calls
> like kill (-2, 0) and kill (0, 0) only on platforms where we know the
> calls do not test a process group.
But on all platforms except Windows 9X we shouldn't see a negative PID
here, so what you say is purely theoretical, no?
> Even on MS Windows 98 we should check that TYPE_MINIMUM (pid_t) <= pid.
Since pid_t is typedefed as 'int', that's always true, no?
> Also, is there a special meaning for kill (0, 0) on MS Windows 98?
No. And our emulation of 'kill' fails with EPERM when called witgh
both arguments zero.
> If so, we should also check that pid != 0.
There are no processes on Windows whose PID is zero, so getting zero
here is impossible.
> Do any MS-Windows platforms support process groups, i.e., kill (-2, 0)
> operates on process group 2 rather than on an individual process with
> process ID -2? If so, these platforms should be careful too, and should
> not use kill (-2, 0) or kill (0, 0).
Windows does support process groups, but our emulation of 'kill'
pretends that each process is its own group.
> How about the attached patch instead? You can adjust the
> Microsoft-specific .h files to define VALID_PROCESS_ID appropriately for
> MS Windows 98, and for any other MS platform where kill (-2, 0) is known
> to check for just the individual process -2.
Fine with me, please install and I will followup.
Thanks.
- bug#71477: 30.0.50; Lock files are not deleted on Windows 98, Po Lu, 2024/06/10
- bug#71477: 30.0.50; Lock files are not deleted on Windows 98, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/06/10
- Message not available
- bug#71477: 30.0.50; Lock files are not deleted on Windows 98, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/06/11
- Message not available
- bug#71477: 30.0.50; Lock files are not deleted on Windows 98, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/06/11
- Message not available
- bug#71477: 30.0.50; Lock files are not deleted on Windows 98, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/06/11
- Message not available
- bug#71477: 30.0.50; Lock files are not deleted on Windows 98, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/06/11
- bug#71477: 30.0.50; Lock files are not deleted on Windows 98, Po Lu, 2024/06/11
- Message not available
- bug#71477: 30.0.50; Lock files are not deleted on Windows 98, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/06/12
- bug#71477: 30.0.50; Lock files are not deleted on Windows 98, Paul Eggert, 2024/06/12
- bug#71477: 30.0.50; Lock files are not deleted on Windows 98,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- bug#71477: 30.0.50; Lock files are not deleted on Windows 98, Paul Eggert, 2024/06/12
- bug#71477: 30.0.50; Lock files are not deleted on Windows 98, Eli Zaretskii, 2024/06/13