I'm holding my head over this one. A combination of Event-0.86 and
BSD::Resource 1.15 coredumps with the following test.pl script:
# -*- perl -*-
use BSD::Resource;
use Event qw(loop unloop sweep);
$Event::DebugLevel = 4;
$count = 0;
Event->timer(interval=> "1",
cb=>sub{$count++;
On May 27, 12:28am, Bradley Brahms wrote:
> Uri,
> I have not done extensive testing with it. But from the little that I did
> do it seemed to work. I have not noticed any problems with it. I am a
> little concerned if a signal comes in between the end of the loop and the
> loop restartin
> "BB" == Bradley Brahms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BB> I have not done extensive testing with it. But from the little
BB> that I did do it seemed to work. I have not noticed any problems
BB> with it. I am a little concerned if a signal comes in between the
BB> end of the loop a
Uri,
I have not done extensive testing with it. But from the little that I did
do it seemed to work. I have not noticed any problems with it. I am a
little concerned if a signal comes in between the end of the loop and the
loop restarting.
The work around is as follows:
1. Prior to th
> "BB" == Bradley Brahms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BB> as far as I know the leak has not been fixed. The application I
BB> was working on uses the method you described. For now, that was
BB> satisfactory for my customer. Its a hack, but it appears to work.
can you post that work
Uri,
as far as I know the leak has not been fixed. The application I was
working on uses the method you described. For now, that was satisfactory
for my customer. Its a hack, but it appears to work.
Brad
-Original Message-
From: Uri Guttman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sat
was the recent leak bug fixed? i can do the loop once in a loop work
around easily if not.
thanx,
uri
--
Uri Guttman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.stemsystems.com
--- Boston Perl Classes July 1-3 http://stemsystems.com/class/
- Stem and Perl Development, S
<> Well, there were some recent modifications to this portion of the code to
<> solve some bugs, so it's possible that those bugs were covering over this
<> problem, if people were using writeable _non-blocking_ sockets.
I /am/ using a non-blocking socket, btw.
I figured, that there must have be
