Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you provide a bit more detail on why its needed here in addition to the other location. The section that avoids restoring them because the parent may have changed them makes sense to me. But this part seems more related to the inspector and may still apply in the shared library case.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I didn't think the inspector applied any additional signal handlers therefore it seems wrong to squash them all on the exit of the node runtime when loaded as a shared library (potentially someone could shutdown the node runtime within their own application and I wouldn't want this to squash any signal handlers in the caller).
I'm happy to be corrected though if there was a separate reason for this loop to be added in here. @eugeneo added this sequence in 6626919 so may have more info and be able to comment.
To be fair, as far as I can see this is only invoked when someone calls process.exit() from within javascript, in which case it'll currently be taking the wrapping process down anyway. on that basis I suspect it won't make a lot of practical difference either way, although I'd prefer to be sure that we really didn't want to squash the handlers in this "embedded" case before removing it.