[drmaa-wg] drmaa_wif*() Functions
Roger Brobst
rogerb at cadence.com
Fri Jan 14 10:37:21 CST 2005
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
More information about the drmaa-wg
mailing list