[DRMAA-WG] wifexited and wifsignalled confusion continues

[Piotr Domagalski]

On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 10:19 PM, Piotr Domagalski
<piotr.domagalski at man.poznan.pl> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Peter Tröger <peter at troeger.eu> wrote:
>> I am not the C binding expert, even though I am maintaining the test
>> suite. Most test cases were originally written for SGE, and therefore
>> could be way too specific. We already relaxed a lot of tests, in order
>> to fit better to the spec itself. This sounds like just another case. If
>> you guys agree on 128, we can put that in.
>
> I don't think this has much to do with C binding. I see it as
> implementability of specification requirements...
>
> Therefore, in order to have more implementations pass the test suite,
> I would vote for limiting ST_EXIT_STATUS test to only codes <= 128.
> Then, it would be specific impl detail whether it supports obtaining 8
> or 7 bit exit statuses. If DRMS uses shell to start the executable,
> it's not possible to have meaningful 8 bit exit code.
>
> It could also be worth noting in the specification document.

Would you mind relaxing it even more? I.e. to test only codes from 0 to 125?

Reading "man 1posix exit":

RATIONALE
       As  explained in other sections, certain exit status values
have been reserved for special uses and should be used by applications
only for those purposes:
        126   A file to be executed was found, but it was not an
executable utility.
        127   A utility to be executed was not found.
       >128   A command was interrupted by a signal.

This way, we could interpret, at DRMAA implementation level, 126 and
127 exit codes so that the job would get DRMAA_PS_FAILED and
drmaa_wifaborted() = true because of wrong executable, instead of
getting exit status of 126 or 127 and leaving the interpretation up to
the user.

-- 
Piotr Domagalski