> What do you think about this issue? How can I fix it? Well titled, precise, concise and horribly plausible. A great write up then. One that I think deserves a bug report at https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?group=make, if you wouldn't mind. That fatal_error_signal handler looks repeatedly and hopelessly in violation of the signal-safe function list at eg http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/V2_chap02.html#tag_15_04_03. Perhaps there's somewhere in the foreground code that make visits regularly and often, which could test a flag set by the signal handler. But I doubt it. Make is such a portable program that the idea of having a thread lying around to service such things isn't, I imagine, going to fly. The only plausible idea I've thought of is using alarm(), a signal-safe function, as a dead man's handle: if the fatal_error_signal handler deadlocks, SIGALRM could be used to suicide within a bounded time. Your children wouldn't have been terminated and intermediate targets wouldn't have been removed, but who real ly relies on eg half-written .o files being automatically deleted? Surely such people eventually get bitten by fail-stops like power outages. I note that SIGALRM is conditionally used elsewhere in the code, but not, I think, on my platform, which I suspect is roughly the same as yours. Perhaps this Morton's Gambit will provoke a response from someone more clueful.
_______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
