Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2016
On 07/30/2016 04:47 PM, Leon Timmermans wrote: > On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Zefram <zefram@fysh.org > <mailto:zefram@fysh.org>> wrote: > > The change is to unhook at the C level all Perl signal handlers before > interpreter destruction. There's a valid rationale for that, but it's > happening too early. It shouldn't happen before END blocks, in which > everything in the interpreter is still operable and the Perl > language is > still expected to be well behaved. > > > Agreed. > > > It could happen just before global > destruction, or just after. > > > I would argue before. Global destruction is unpredictable enough as it > is, adding signals to that will only make it worse. I think that in > the non-object phase it might even segfault because the CV doesn't > exist anymore. One could argue to unhook it right after global object > destruction (so well before global non-object destruction) though. I appreciate Paul's comment on this: "[...] as already GD is a weird time.". :) What would worry me is that if it's after GD, people might depend on it and now refactoring this, cleaning it up, optimizing it - those actions might conflict. I would rather keep it before unless there's a good[1] reason. [1] "I want" should probably not be a good enough reason.Thread Previous