[drmaa-wg] drmaa_wif*() Functions

[Roger Brobst]

There is currently no provision for communicating that the 
job terminated normally, without knowing its exit status.

I do not foresee the need for such a provision.

-Roger


In a previous e-mail, Daniel Templeton wrote:
> OK.  So non-zero means the exit status is available.  Good.  We still 
> have two meanings for zero, though.  Zero means that the job exited 
> abnormally, i.e. without exit status, and more info is available through 
> drmaa_wifsignaled() and drmaa_wifaborted().  Zero also means that the 
> job exited normally, but the exit status was lost somewhere along the way.
> Do we want to differentiate these two cases?  In the former, one of the 
> drmaa_wif*() function will return true.  In the later, all drmaa_wif*() 
> functions wil return false.  Is that differentiation enough?  This 
> appears to be the use case supported by the C binding example.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> Roger Brobst wrote:
> 
> > In a previous e-mail, Daniel Templeton wrote:
> > 
> >>I'm now working on the drmaa_wait() function and its helpers, and I've 
> >>run into an inconsistency.  In the language independent and former C 
> >>specs, the drmaa_wifexited() function is defined as returning non-zero 
> >>if the job has ended normally and zero if the job has ended normally but 
> >>has no exit status available. 
> >>So far so good.  
> > 
> > 
> > drmaa_wifexited should return non-zero only when an exit status
> > can be obtained from drmaa_wexitstatus.  
> > An exit status can only be obtained if the job ended normally.
> > 
> > 
> >>It then goes on to say that 
> >>if drmaa_wifexited() returns non-zero (non-zero == normal exit), 
> >>then more information is available from drmaa_wifsignaled() and 
> >>drmaa_wifaborted().  Huh?
> > 
> > 
> > Therein is the problem. It read something like:
> >     if drmaa_wifexited returns zero, then more information is 
> >     available from drmaa_wifsignaled() or drmaa_wifaborted().
> > 
> > Nice catch.
> > 
> > 
> >>Signaling and Aborting are not normal exit methods.  Those are abnormal. 
> >>  However, according to the spec, there's no way to say that the job 
> >>exited abnormally.
> >>The example in the C binding spec treats a return of zero from 
> >>drmaa_wifexited() as meaning the job exited abnormally.  That's also how 
> >>I interpreted it in the Java language binding spec.
> >>What was the actual intention here?
> >>
> >>Daniel