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 sbt
Recipients pitrou, sbt
Date 2012-05-08.14:58:05
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1336489087.9.0.014285533368.issue14753@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
In version 3.2 and earlier, Process.join() and Connection.poll() treat negative timeouts as zero timeouts.  (Thread.join() does the same.)

In the current 3.3 version, they treat negative timeouts as infinite timeouts.  Also multiprocessing.connection.wait() (new in 3.3) currently treats them as infinite on Unix and zero on Windows.

The attached patch fixes the regression with Process.join() and Connection.poll().  It also makes wait() treat negative timeouts as zero on both Windows and Unix.


It is worth noting that there is a fair amount of inconsistency in the handling of negative timeouts in the stdlib in 3.2:

Treat negative as infinite:
    select.select
    select.*.poll
    threading.*.acquire                   (new in 3.2)
    multiprocessing.dummy.*.acquire       (new in 3.2)

Treat negative as zero:
    threading.Thread.join
    threading.(Condition|Event).wait
    multiprocessing.Process.join
    multiprocessing.*.acquire
    multiprocessing.(Condition|Event).wait
    multiprocessing.Connection.poll
    multiprocessing.Queue.(get|put)
    concurrent.futures.Future.result
    concurrent.futures.wait

Treat negative as error:
    queue.Queue.(get|put)
    socket.socket.settimeout
History
Date User Action Args
2012-05-08 14:58:08sbtsetrecipients: + sbt, pitrou
2012-05-08 14:58:07sbtsetmessageid: <1336489087.9.0.014285533368.issue14753@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2012-05-08 14:58:06sbtlinkissue14753 messages
2012-05-08 14:58:06sbtcreate