[issue22442] subprocess.check_call hangs on large PIPEd data.

2015-05-19 Thread juj
juj added the comment: This issue still reads open, but there has not been activity in a long time. May I ask what is the latest status on this? Also, any chance whether this will be part of Python 2.x? -- ___ Python tracker <h

[issue23489] atexit handlers are not executed when using multiprocessing.Pool.map.

2015-02-20 Thread juj
juj added the comment: While the test case can be 'fixed' by changing the code to use "if __name__ == '__main__'", and I'm ok to do it in my code to work around the problem, I would argue the following: 1) calling this not a bug (or solving it only at do

[issue23489] atexit handlers are not executed when using multiprocessing.Pool.map.

2015-02-20 Thread juj
juj added the comment: This was tested on Python 2.7.9 64-bit on Windows 8.1, however I believe that it occurs equally on OSX and Linux, since I am running servers with those OSes that also exhibit temp file leaking issues (although I did not specifically confirm if the root cause is the same

[issue23489] atexit handlers are not executed when using multiprocessing.Pool.map.

2015-02-20 Thread juj
New submission from juj: When Multiprocessing.Pool.map is used for a script that registers atexit handlers, the atexit handlers are not executed when the pool threads quit. STR: 1. Run attached file in Python 2.7 with 'python task_spawn.py' 2. Observe the printed output. Observed

[issue22442] subprocess.check_call hangs on large PIPEd data.

2014-09-21 Thread juj
juj added the comment: Hmm, that path does it for stdout=PIPE in subprocess.call only? It could equally apply to stderr=PIPE in subprocess.call as well, and also to both stdout=PIPE and stderr=PIPE in subprocess.check_call? -- ___ Python tracker

[issue22442] subprocess.check_call hangs on large PIPEd data.

2014-09-20 Thread juj
juj added the comment: Very good question akira. In one codebase where I have fixed this kind of bug, see https://github.com/kripken/emscripten/commit/1b2badd84bc6f54a3125a494fa38a51f9dbb5877 https://github.com/kripken/emscripten/commit/2f048a4e452f5bacdb8fa31481c55487fd64d92a the intended

[issue22442] subprocess.check_call hangs on large PIPEd data.

2014-09-19 Thread juj
juj added the comment: The same observation applies to subprocess.call() as well. -- ___ Python tracker <http://bugs.python.org/issue22442> ___ ___ Python-bug

[issue22442] subprocess.check_call hangs on large PIPEd data.

2014-09-19 Thread juj
New submission from juj: On Windows, write a.py: import subprocess def ccall(cmdline, stdout, stderr): proc = subprocess.Popen(['python', 'b.py'], stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.PIPE) proc.communicate() if proc.returncode != 0: raise subproces

[issue22066] subprocess.communicate() does not receive full output from the called process.

2014-07-27 Thread juj
Changes by juj : -- resolution: -> not a bug ___ Python tracker <http://bugs.python.org/issue22066> ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscrib

[issue22066] subprocess.communicate() does not receive full output from the called process.

2014-07-27 Thread juj
juj added the comment: Further testing suggests that this is not a Python issue, but instead an issue in node.js, reported already earlier here https://github.com/joyent/node/issues/1669 Closing this as invalid. -- ___ Python tracker <h

[issue22066] subprocess.communicate() does not receive full output from the called process.

2014-07-25 Thread juj
New submission from juj: When Python 2.7 executes a Node .js application that prints to stdout and subsequently exits, Python does not capture full output printed by that application. Steps to repro: 1. Download and unzip http://clb.demon.fi/bugs/python_proc_bug.zip 2. Run run_test.bat