comment on

I was surprised to find that a DESTROY handler called when an object goes out of scope changes the exit status of the child process it's running in, even if that child exits with exit(exit_code).

This code:

package Foo;
use strict;
use warnings;
sub new {
    bless {}, shift;
}
sub DESTROY {
    warn "$$: destroy";
    system("waaaah");
}

package main;
use strict;
use warnings;
use POSIX ":sys_wait_h";

my $foo = Foo->new();

my $pid = fork();

die "fork failed" if !defined $pid;

if( $pid ) {
    # parent
    print "$$: parent\n";
} else {
    # child
    print "$$: child\n";
    # system("waaaah");
    exit 5;
}

my $reaped = waitpid($pid, 0);

my $child_exit_status = POSIX::WEXITSTATUS($?);

print "pid=$reaped status: $child_exit_status\n";
[download]

shows

pid=4778 status: 255

although the child exits with exit(5). So the failing system() call in the DESTROY method of the object that goes out of scope overrides the explicitly set exit() value?

(If you comment out the system() call in the DESTROY handler and uncomment the one in the child code you'll get the expected exit code 5).

Surprised?

In reply to DESTROY handler changes child exit status? by saintmike

Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>
Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
Want more info? How to link or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.


laziness, impatience, and hubris
	PerlMonks