⚠️ Warning: This is a draft ⚠️
This means it might contain formatting issues, incorrect code, conceptual problems, or other severe issues.
If you want to help to improve and eventually enable this page, please fork RosettaGit's repository and open a merge request on GitHub.
Except for possibly a few languages, this task is highly operating system dependent. It's probably not a good task for rosettacode.--[[User:18.104.22.168|22.214.171.124]] 20:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC) : It's a very common problem, and platform-specific code isn't inappropriate, as long as the platform is identified in the example. --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 02:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
== C Solution ==
I wonder why the file system method was considered a better solution. I liked the older code that used semaphores.
[[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 06:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
: I run [[OpenBSD]]. This system has [http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=sem_open&apropos=0&sektion=3&manpath=OpenBSD+Current&arch=i386&format=html a very broken ''sem_open()''] which always fails with ENOSYS. I changed this program from a named semaphore to a regular file, so that the program would work with my system. Now I can add a SIGINT handler.
: I did read some ''sem_open()'' manual pages. I believed that a name of a named semaphore must start with "/"; but the program had "MyUniqueName", which starts not with "/". I also believed that ''sem_open()'' fails by returning SEM_FAILED; but the program checked NULL, not SEM_FAILED.
: I noticed that the program never used the semaphore as a semaphore. A program can do the same thing with shared memory (''shm_open()'' and ''shm_unlink()'') or with a regular file (''open()'' and ''unlink()''). So the solution with a regular file is as good as the solution with a semaphore. --[[User:Kernigh|Kernigh]] 02:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
== VB solution ==
It looks like the VB solution only checks for previously run instances of the application. What about instances started after this one? Should this be a problem and should we choose to keep this task, it should be corrected. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 21:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC) : The common case requiring detection of multiple instances are running is to prevent multiple instances of a program from accessing app-global resources. That's probably what the author of the VB solution had in mind. The task author should probably clarify the task's intent and requirements. --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 02:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The purpose is as you say for the detection of multiple instances for the purpose of preventing conflicting access to global resources. I would expect the first instance of the task to not detect another instance, whereas subsequent instances (duplicate instances of the same task) detect a previous instance already running and abort with an error message.
[[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 20:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)