Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>At 10:11 AM -0800 3/10/04, Brent \"Dax\" Royal-Gordon wrote:
>>Josh Wilmes wrote:
>>>It's also quite possible that miniparrot is a waste of time. I'm
>>>pretty much of the opinion myself that it's an academic exercise at
>>>this point, but one which keeps us honest, even if we don't use it.
>>
>>Miniparrot, or something very much like it, is the final build system.
>
>Yep. We need to make sure it always works.
>
>Which, unfortunately, will end up making things a hassle, since
>there's no platform-independent way to spawn a sub-process, dammit. :(
On that topic specifically - the DOS style spawn() API is
easy to fake with fork/exec but converse is NOT true.
i.e. if Miniparrot assumes:
pid_t my_spawn(const char *progname,int argc,const char *argv[]);
int my_wait(pid_t proc);
then Unix-oids can have
pid_t my_spawn(const char *progname,int argc,const char *argv[]);
{
pid_t pid = fork();
if (pid)
return pid;
execv(progname,argc,argv);
}
Unidirectional popen() is also reasonably portable.
