Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 13:11:19 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: python@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 245773] lang/python3: Missing errno.EDEADLOCK Message-ID: <bug-245773-21822-eQk1zAs1kT@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-245773-21822@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-245773-21822@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D245773 --- Comment #4 from Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl> --- (In reply to Gleb Popov from comment #3) >> But it would be a lot more conveinient if it did exist and worked as exp= ected. > And what's expected in this case? I, for example, expect an undefined con= stant, because FreeBSD doesn't have EDEADLOCK code. On FreeBSD I would errno.EDEADLOCK to be 11.... Like I said, that does not fix the problem of the submitter. We can call it whatever we want, but fixing this will cause less python cod= e to crash on first execution, where then the user dives into the python code and does something to handle the lack of. Be it comment it out, if-def-ignore or whatever. And yes you are probably correct in suggestiing that this might have a bett= er place at the python code itself. (Not to speak of getting it in cython) --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-245773-21822-eQk1zAs1kT>