[Bug default/19233] Add a --timeout <time-in-second> argument to abidiff

[Bug default/19233] Add a --timeout <time-in-second> argument to abidiff

[cqi at redhat dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19233

Chenxiong Qi <cqi at redhat dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |cqi at redhat dot com

--- Comment #1 from Chenxiong Qi <cqi at redhat dot com> ---
What return code will be returned. Non-zero would be a choice.

The test results by the part of check that is already done still outputs. I
think it would make sense.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug default/19233] New: Add a --timeout <time-in-second> argument to abidiff

[dodji at redhat dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19233

            Bug ID: 19233
           Summary: Add a --timeout <time-in-second> argument to abidiff
           Product: libabigail
           Version: unspecified
            Status: NEW
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P2
         Component: default
          Assignee: dodji at redhat dot com
          Reporter: dodji at redhat dot com
                CC: libabigail at sourceware dot org
  Target Milestone: ---

To shield programs that call abidiff against runs that could possibly take too
much time, a --timeout option would be appropriate.

That option would take an argument N in seconds.

If abidiff does not complete before N seconds, its execution would be aborted
and a message would be emitted on the standard error output, saying that the
execution has been aborted because it could not be performed within N seconds.

One possible way to implement this could be by using a combination of fork,
exec, waitpid, alarm an kill system calls.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug default/19233] Add a --timeout <time-in-second> argument to abidiff

[andrew.c.morrow at gmail dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19233

andrew.c.morrow at gmail dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |andrew.c.morrow at gmail dot com

--- Comment #2 from andrew.c.morrow at gmail dot com ---
I'd like this for abidw as well, so that for my build system usage, if abidw
takes too long, I can bail out and do a normal content signature, rather than
the ABI based one.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug default/19233] Add a --timeout <time-in-second> argument to abidiff

[dodji at redhat dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19233

--- Comment #3 from dodji at redhat dot com ---
Some people have proposed that we just use the program 'timeout',
provided by coreutils, for this use case.

The reason why I was thinking about having a --timeout option was to
have a finer control about what we return in that case.

Right now, the 8 bits exit value of abidiff tells us about the kind of
difference or error encountered.  In case of timeout error (and if
abidiff handles --abidiff), we could flip the first bit (which mean
there was an error) and then flip the third bit too, saying that there
was a timeout.

Otherwise, if users use the "timeout" program from coreutils, handling
the exit code gracefully seems a little bit more bumpy.

What do you think?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug default/19233] Add a --timeout <time-in-second> argument to abidiff

[dodji at redhat dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19233

dodji at redhat dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |WONTFIX

--- Comment #4 from dodji at redhat dot com ---
OK, finally, I think that just using the "timeout" program from coreutils is a
better solution.

I don't really see a compelling reason for not using that one.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.