I can try it on OSX, and review the stubprocess.py source (which I haven't yet). I don't think we need to worry about Windows; it has its own process creation methods with their own characteristics and bugs.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 3:07 AM, Dirk Bächle <tshor...@gmx.de> wrote: > On 23.04.2014 01:42, Bill Deegan wrote: > >> Dirk, >> >> So if I understand correctly, the stubprocess patch passes all the >> regression tests and is signficantly faster than the current implementation? >> > > That's correct, but I'm not sure whether things like the redirection of > stdout/stderr works in all cases, or might create quirky problems in > certain situations. I just can't judge the technical stability level of the > stubprocess.py source. > > > Is there any downside to using it? (Does it work on py3?) >> > I haven't tried the wrapper under Python3 yet. But as far as I understood > Eugene and Jason, it's not implemented. > Another downside is that this doesn't work under Windows obviously, I > don't have any infos about OSx, and Alexandre Leblot already asked me in a > PM about the support for Solaris. I can't test these things, so I've no > idea. ;) > > > If not is there any reason not to send a pull request? >> >> Creating a pull request is probably not difficult, on the technical > level. But should the wrapper get activated automatically under Linux, > transparently for the user? Or would it be an experimental option at first, > that the user can activate via a command-line option...since we aren't that > sure about all the possible implications? > > Dirk > > > > _______________________________________________ > Scons-dev mailing list > Scons-dev@scons.org > http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev > -- Gary
_______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list Scons-dev@scons.org http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
