On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 22:52 +0400, Pavel Fedin wrote:
> > Exactly, hence the reason for my question. I'm not interested in adding
> > this if, when it's enabled, things don't work correctly.
>
> > On the other hand I'm not sure it's not possible to get things working
> > correctly. Or, perhaps i
> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 22:52:55 +0400
> From: Pavel Fedin
> Cc: Christopher Faylor ,
> bug-make@gnu.org
>
> To me current situation looks non-constructive. You say: "Current
> implementation works, new implementation theoretically may fail
> (because it's new), so we
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 02:18:31PM -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
>On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 13:30 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 01:12:28PM -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
>> >On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 20:59 +0400, Pavel Fedin wrote:
>> >>Friday, August 16, 2013, 19:19:58 you wrote:
>> >>
> From: Paul Smith
> Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 14:18:31 -0400
> Cc: bug-make@gnu.org
>
> > >So, the question is very simple: is it technically possible to ensure
> > >that the operations make takes today in the child between fork and exec
> > >can be handled properly in a spawn-based implementation?
Hello, Paul.
Friday, August 16, 2013, 22:18:31 you wrote:
>> Presumably make works at least 99% correctly on Windows using spawn*().
>> I don't doubt at all that the patch actually works great with most uses
>> of make in Cygwin. However, I would rather be 100% correct and slower
>> than 99% cor
On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 13:30 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 01:12:28PM -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> >On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 20:59 +0400, Pavel Fedin wrote:
> >>Friday, August 16, 2013, 19:19:58 you wrote:
> >>
> >>>Also, when I'm making changes to the exec() code I don't spe
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 01:12:28PM -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
>On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 20:59 +0400, Pavel Fedin wrote:
>>Friday, August 16, 2013, 19:19:58 you wrote:
>>
>>>Also, when I'm making changes to the exec() code I don't spend a lot of
>>>time worrying about spawn() so it is possible that it wi
On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 20:59 +0400, Pavel Fedin wrote:
> Friday, August 16, 2013, 19:19:58 you wrote:
>
> > Also, when I'm making changes to the exec() code I don't spend a lot of
> > time worrying about spawn() so it is possible that it will be broken
> > from time to time and, in fact, I think yo
Hello, Christopher.
Friday, August 16, 2013, 19:19:58 you wrote:
> Also, when I'm making changes to the exec() code I don't spend a lot of
> time worrying about spawn() so it is possible that it will be broken
> from time to time and, in fact, I think you actually noticed some
> breakage in the c
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 04:38:22PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Pavel Fedin
>> Cc: m...@cgf.cx, bug-make@gnu.org
>> Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 10:22:31 +0400
>>
>> > > 2. PATH_SEPARATOR on Cygwin is ':' and on pure DOS/Windows is ';'.
>> >
>> > This is true, but how is this relevant to the i
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 12:52:48PM +0400, Pavel Fedin wrote:
>> I tried to explain that in my first response: 'fork' has a certain
>> semantics and implements requirements that 'spawn' does not.
>
>Stop stop stop... Just to avoid misunderstanding here... fork() alone
>cannot be replaced with spaw
11 matches
Mail list logo
