Re: [Scons-dev] Subprocess issue on Linux?

On 05.04.2014 00:17, Kenny, Jason L wrote: I think yes, in that it does what should be done by the system under posix_spawn.. ie call vfork and execve. Here is the last version of the monkey patch I have from the people working on it. It has a fallback to the classic fork exec if the API's

Re: [Scons-dev] Subprocess issue on Linux?

I think yes, in that it does what should be done by the system under posix_spawn.. ie call vfork and execve. Here is the last version of the monkey patch I have from the people working on it. It has a fallback to the classic fork exec if the API's don't exists. It seems to solve the main speed

Re: [Scons-dev] Subprocess issue on Linux?

On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Kenny, Jason L wrote: > Hi dirk, > > > > While I don't have a patch to SCons at the moment we have people in my > team fixing this with Parts as a monkey path to sub process module. I asked > the two people working on this to speak up and update their patch work >

Re: [Scons-dev] Subprocess issue on Linux?

Hi dirk, While I don't have a patch to SCons at the moment we have people in my team fixing this with Parts as a monkey path to sub process module. I asked the two people working on this to speak up and update their patch work online for SCons to consider. I think from my point of view there i

Re: [Scons-dev] Subprocess issue on Linux?

On 02.04.2014 23:38, Gary Oberbrunner wrote: On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Dirk Bächle > wrote: This idea may be feasible, but I'd rather try to get the actual shell spawning to be as fast as possible. We have some valid approaches for this, so let's try t