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 vstinner
Recipients gregory.p.smith, neologix, pitrou, python-dev, rnk, vstinner
Date 2011-04-08.07:20:16
SpamBayes Score 1.1096124e-12
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1302247212.14280.8.camel@marge>
In-reply-to <BANLkTi=fCDc+wc0O++TedYUS6h0R2Fi7Uw@mail.gmail.com>
Content
Le vendredi 08 avril 2011 à 05:34 +0000, Charles-Francois Natali a
écrit :
> Charles-Francois Natali <neologix@free.fr> added the comment:
> 
> > You may also patch poll_poll().
> >
> 
> Poll accepts negative timeout values, since it's the only way to
> specify an infinite wait (contrarily to select which can be passed
> NULL).

Oh, I didn't know. In this case, is my commit 3664fc29e867 correct? I
think that it is, because without the patch, subprocess may call poll()
with a negative timeout, and so it is no more a timeout at all.

If I am correct, it is a real bug. Should it be fixed in Python 2.7, 3.1
and 3.2? ... Hum, it looks like communicate() timeout was introduced in
Python 3.3: c4a0fa6e687c. This commit has no reference to an issue: it
is the issue #5673. And as it was already written in msg130851, the doc
is wrong: the doc indicates that the feature was introduced in 3.2, but
it is 3.3 only. The change is not documented in Misc/NEWS.
History
Date User Action Args
2011-04-08 07:20:18vstinnersetrecipients: + vstinner, gregory.p.smith, pitrou, rnk, neologix, python-dev
2011-04-08 07:20:17vstinnerlinkissue11757 messages
2011-04-08 07:20:16vstinnercreate