Hello!
> I like this patch; it looks like a good improvement! It works fine for
> me on UNIX systems.
>
> Only one comment:
>
> > - /* undo CLOSE_ON_EXEC() after the child process has been started
*/
> > + /* undo FD_CLOEXEC after the child process has been started */
>
> I think th
On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 22:04 +0400, Pavel Fedin wrote:
> Hello, Paul! Sorry for so long delay, i'm really quite busy, however i
> have found some time to get back to this. Please review the new
> version.
I like this patch; it looks like a good improvement! It works fine for
me on UNIX syst
Hello, Paul! Sorry for so long delay, i'm really quite busy, however i
have found some time to get back to this. Please review the new
version.
This is actually a repost. I have posted this message a week ago and
got no response. I suggest it fell into old thread, so you have missed
it.
Hello, Paul! Sorry for so long delay, i'm really quite busy, however i
have found some time to get back to this. Please review the new
version.
Monday, February 3, 2014, 0:30:26 you wrote:
> I prefer the macro form as well; please keep it that way.
Done.
> Also, I'm not sure I like the
Hello, Paul!
I have read your suggestions and i think i can implement them. But,
sorry, not earlier than weekend. Starting to be extremely busy...
--
С уважением,
Pavel mailto:pavel_fe...@mail.ru
___
Bug-make mailing lis
On Fri, 2014-01-31 at 10:32 +0400, Pavel Fedin wrote:
> Ok, i actually can leave it as a macro.
I prefer the macro form as well; please keep it that way.
Also, I'm not sure I like the current child_execute_job() where there
are two completely different implementations in the same function,
handle
Hello!
> This will break the native Windows build, so please don't. (See job.h
> for how this macro is defined on Windows.) And even if the places
> where you made those expansions are not compiled on Windows, having a
> macro in some places and its expansion in others is confusing.
Ok, i act
> From: Paul Smith
> Cc: Pavel Fedin , bug-make@gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 12:33:41 -0500
>
> On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 19:29 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > I will review the patch some more in a day or two. (And I hope Paul
> > will as well.)
>
> Yes, definitely, but it won't be until the w
On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 19:29 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> I will review the patch some more in a day or two. (And I hope Paul
> will as well.)
Yes, definitely, but it won't be until the weekend I expect. Life is
intruding on hacking this month.
___
B
> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 01:16:34 +0400
> From: Pavel Fedin
>
> Hello! This is my long-promised refactor. After this it's much easier
> to apply runtime selection between spawn() and fork() on Cygwin,
> because all differences are now consolidated in two functions:
> child_execute
Ooops, sorry. It's really too late here, so i'm a bit impatient.
Forgot to regenerate .diff after last-minute change. Better use this
version. In it return type of child_execute_job() is changed from int to
pid_t, as it should be.
--
С уважением,
Pavel mailto:p
Hello! This is my long-promised refactor. After this it's much easier
to apply runtime selection between spawn() and fork() on Cygwin,
because all differences are now consolidated in two functions:
child_execute_process() and exec_command().
Insome critical POSIX-specific
12 matches
Mail list logo
