On 01/17/2012 01:15 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote: > On 1/17/2012 1:00 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote: >> This thread shows how bad the wxExecute and wxProcess support are in >> wxWidgets: >> >> http://trac.wxwidgets.org/ticket/12636 >> >> I read it once, and tears were in my eyes before I got to the end. > Yuck! It looks like the wxWidgets folks have some work to do. It > appears they are working on it but it may be a while before they have a > solution that will work for us. > >> Of course the problem we always have on linux is the locking up of the child >> process >> >> >> >> Perhaps we should do these steps: >> >> 1) Change common's >> >> bool ProcessExecute( const wxString& aCommandLine, int aFlags ) >> >> to >> >> bool ProcessExecute( const wxString& aCommandLine, bool runAsync = true ) >> >> >> 2) Move it into its own processexecute.cpp source file, still in libcommon, >> so that we can >> use unusual, system dependent header files in that single implementation >> file. >> >> >> 3) Think about using boost/process.hpp to launch our child programs, or a >> combination of >> fork() and exec() on linux (google around for a combo function). >> In any case this is now in its own file, and we control the strategy in a >> single place. > This makes sense to me. If we have to roll our own solution, then it > could get rather complex so putting it in it's own file is a good idea. > >> The piping back into the parent process must be omitted, we don't use it or >> want it, and >> hopefully this can finally clean up the locking up on Debug and sometimes >> Release builds. >> >> >> If either: >> >> a) boost/process.hpp were to require compiled library files, or >> b) it did not become available until after our current boost version, >> >> then I would score this against it heavily. But if it can be done by the >> addition of a >> few boost version compatible header files, this is worth a look. > I don't believe Boost process has been excepted for the next release of > Boost. Here is the original review post on the Boost mailing list: > > http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2011/02/176751.php > > After reading a few responses, it looks like there is still quite a bit > of work to do before it will be included into Boost. > > We could always grab a copy from: > > http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/process/boost/ > > and give it try.
Based on what you said, and what I said, I'm not in favor of actually this: #include <boost/process.hpp> . So, maybe just duplicate the 10-30 lines or so for linux (posix?) that we need (from boost/process.hpp or elsewhere), moving it into processexecute.cpp inside some #ifdef Could even keep existing MS Windows strategy if its not a problem. After all, its in a black box called ProcessExecute(), and we control that black box. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
