On 17-Feb-2012 09:12:29 -0800 (PST), Ben Fritz wrote:
> What if, instead of an option, we add an optional argument to
> system()? Or is that too weird, to have a Windows-only argument to a
> function?
Do we know of any plugins that break because of this, or is this a purely
theoretical case (well, except for the reported chcp.com) so far? All the
"common" ones do exist in both 32 and 64-bit versions (cmd.exe, cscript.exe,
...)
> I like this because the MS docs say the redirection should
> only be suppressed temporarily, and this would allow that. I don't
> like it because a user might want to use :! or :r !{cmd} instead of
> system(). But I don't think we normally want users to set the option
> and leave it set, unless they also tweak their path to search in the
> 32-bit directories along with the 64-bit ones.
Yes, turning off the redirection can cause issues with loading DLLs, as these
are then taken from the wrong directory and have the wrong bitness, so their
loading fails. As Vim is able to do this via libcall(), it is an issue, though
there are probably few to no users of this functionality.
> Actually I don't think it's a big issue on modern Windows systems. I'm
> on XP 64-bit. Starting with Windows Vista, supposedly you can use a
> special path alias to get to the non-redirected folders. Also, XP 64-
> bit is not widely used, and I imagine they've worked out some of the
> missing apps in the 32-bit folder with Vista and later. I don't like
> "you're out of luck if you don't use 64-bit Vim" but I suppose I can
> accept it if it works in Vista and later.
Right, you mean C:\Windows\Sysnative. Microsoft offers a hotfix that backports
this to Windows XP and 2003 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/942589), but few
will have this installed, and documenting all these hoops is a real hassle.
-- regards, ingo
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
