> Concerning fork/vfork/posix_spawn, I have observed
> good performance enhancements by switching from fork
> to vfork and again from vfork to posix_spawn in
> "xjobs".
Strange that you had that much difference between vfork and posix_spawn, I
thought the second one was just a wrapper to make usi
Roland Mainz wrote:
Does the update need to be ARC'ed in any way ?
Aha! A "teaching moment" :-)
What do you think should happen here? Why?
[pause while thinking about the questions]
As I think about how I would answer your question, I ask myself a couple
of other questions to help me sco
>set ignoreeof=3
>
>caused in tcsh <6.12, >6.12 that after the third ^D the shell closes. In 6.12
>the shell closes after the forth ^D.
Ah; I use plain ignoreeof.
(I agree that matching the code to the documentation is usually
wrong after the fact)
Casper
__
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
For me the most annoying change in 6.12 (Solaris 10ff.) was the redefinition
of the ignoreeof variable. The change was reverted in 6.13
How was it redefined? (I use it but found no noteworthy change)
My settings:
set ignoreeof=3
caused in tcsh <6.12, >6.12 that a
>Garrett D'Amore schrieb:
>> I would think changing to vfork would not. However, updating to a newer
>> version _might_ require ARC approval, particularly if it creates user
>> visible changes in the form of new builtins, shell variables, command
>> line switches, etc.
>
>For me the most annoying
Garrett D'Amore schrieb:
I would think changing to vfork would not. However, updating to a newer
version _might_ require ARC approval, particularly if it creates user
visible changes in the form of new builtins, shell variables, command
line switches, etc.
For me the most annoying change in 6.
Alan Coopersmith writes:
> Roland Mainz wrote:
> > James Carlson wrote:
> >>Roland Mainz writes:
> >>>"tcsh" lives in SFW, right ?
> >>
> >>Right.
> >
> > Does the update need to be ARC'ed in any way ?
>
> Updating to a new version of an existing open source package may need
> ARC review if it ad
Roland Mainz wrote:
> James Carlson wrote:
>
>> Roland Mainz writes:
>>
It's a priority problem, and the kind of one that perversely results
from having too many open source things integrated with the Solaris
distribution. :-<
>>> "tcsh" lives in SFW, right ?
>
Roland Mainz wrote:
James Carlson wrote:
Roland Mainz writes:
"tcsh" lives in SFW, right ?
Right.
Does the update need to be ARC'ed in any way ?
Updating to a new version of an existing open source package may need
ARC review if it adds new interfaces or consumes new interfaces which
aren
James Carlson wrote:
> Roland Mainz writes:
> > > It's a priority problem, and the kind of one that perversely results
> > > from having too many open source things integrated with the Solaris
> > > distribution. :-<
> >
> > "tcsh" lives in SFW, right ?
>
> Right.
Does the update need to be ARC'
Roland Mainz writes:
> > It's a priority problem, and the kind of one that perversely results
> > from having too many open source things integrated with the Solaris
> > distribution. :-<
>
> "tcsh" lives in SFW, right ?
Right.
--
James Carlson, KISS Network<[EMAIL PROTECTE
James Carlson wrote:
> Thomas Maier-Komor writes:
> > to do so and good arguments to support an upgrade. Unfortunately
> > there seems to be a great fear of regressions hidden within newer
> > versions of tcsh - I don't know why...
>
> No, I don't think that's the issue at all. The issue is a per
Thomas Maier-Komor writes:
> to do so and good arguments to support an upgrade. Unfortunately
> there seems to be a great fear of regressions hidden within newer
> versions of tcsh - I don't know why...
No, I don't think that's the issue at all. The issue is a persistent
lack of people with both
I have seen that, too. Additionally, Solaris gets shipped with tcsh 6.12.0,
which is some years behind the current version of tcsh. I once asked, if there
were any plans to upgrade to a current version and got as an answer that there
are no plans to do this. If I remember the following discussio
14 matches
Mail list logo
