On Jan 24 13:28, Jon Turney wrote: > On 23/01/2024 14:29, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Jan 23 14:20, Jon Turney wrote: > > > > > Even then this is clearly not totally bullet-proof. Maybe the right thing > > > to > > > do is add a suitable timeout here, so even if we fail to notice the > > > DebugActiveProcess() (or there's a custom JIT debugger which just writes > > > the > > > fact a process crashed to a logfile or something), we'll exit eventually? > > > > Timeouts are just that tiny little bit more bullet-proof, they still > > aren't totally bullet-proof. > > > > What timeout were you thinking of? milliseconds? > > Oh no, tens of seconds or something, just as a fail-safe.
Uh, sounds a lot. 10 secs? Not longer, I think. If you want to do that for 3.5, please do it this week. You can push the change without waiting for approval. > (Ofc, all this is working around the fact that Win32 API doesn't have a > WaitForDebuggerPresent(timeout) function) Yeah, and there's no alternative way using the native API afaics :( Corinna
