STINNER Victor <victor.stin...@haypocalc.com> added the comment: Le vendredi 08 avril 2011 à 05:34 +0000, Charles-Francois Natali a écrit : > Charles-Francois Natali <neolo...@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. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue11757> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
