I like the idea of an interrupt handling mechanism. What do you see that
would make the signal/libc approach unreliable?
On Tuesday, 17 June 2014 12:18:11 UTC-3, Stefan Karpinski wrote:
>
> That is very unlikely to be reliable, but it's cool that it works. I think
> that we probably should change SIGINT from raising a normal error to
> triggering some kind of interrupt handling mechanism (which can in turn
> raise an error by default).
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Stephen Chisholm <sbchi...@gmail.com
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
>> I'm able to register a callback function using signal in libc, see the
>> code below.
>>
>> SIGINT=2
>>
>> function catch_function(x)
>> println("caught signal $x")
>> exit(0)::Nothing
>> end
>> catch_function_c = cfunction(catch_function, None, (Int64,))
>> ccall((:signal, "libc"), Void, (Int64, Ptr{Void}), SIGINT,
>> catch_function_c)
>>
>> while true
>> sleep(1)
>> end
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, 17 June 2014 09:24:43 UTC-3, Stephen Chisholm wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm able to catch the InterruptException with the code below when
>>> running in the REPL, but it doesn't seem to get thrown when running the
>>> code in a script.
>>>
>>> while true
>>> try sleep(1)
>>> println("running...")
>>> catch err
>>> println("error: $err")
>>> end
>>> end
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, 16 June 2014 18:30:36 UTC-3, Ivar Nesje wrote:
>>>>
>>>> SIGINT gets converted to a InterruptException, that can be caught in a
>>>> catch statement. If you happened to be in a ccall, you might cause your
>>>> program to be in a corrupt state and leak resources such as memory.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure how you can interact with other signals.
>>>>
>>>
>
