Hi,
> AFAIK, it is been problem on Win32 for an ages, and no
one provided an
> good alternative for unix implementation. I didn't used
it on Win32 side and
> not sure what are pros/cons of current implementation,
but after quick
> search I found some alternative on qt list:
> http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/1999-09/
thread00282-0.html
>
> I am not able to decipher german comments, but hoping
this can be good
> starting point.
>
That's not too bad. Fortunately, I have some code, written
several years ago
that implement exactly what we need, i.e. a cross-platform
"spawn" function that
can be used to control the inputs and outputs of external
programs.
My code did work on Win32, OS/2 and Unix, and I'm currently
stripping it down
to use it in Jam. The Win32 code already works pretty fine,
but could be a bit
simpler since we don't need to do a lot of the fancy things
that were part of
the initial requirements. I think I'll have something good
to show next week.
By the way, what does "popen" does with the
non-redirected standard streams of the
executed commands on Unix. For now, I have the choice of
implementing any of the
following, I don't have made any decision yet:
- redirect stdin to /dev/zero
- redirect stdin to /dev/nul (blocking)
- redirect stderr to stdout
- redirect stderr to /dev/null
- keep stdin and stderr as they are, they're inherited by
the child process
Do any of you guys can think of a good rationale for
thinking about a consistent
behaviour. I plan to implement the same one on all
platforms.
Any VMS hacker to implement "popen" or something
like that as well ?
Apart from that, I think that "lines" should be a
reasonable default. I'd rather
see a new "Split" built-in to perform the
lines-to-word separation than add
arguments to the "Command" built-in
Regards,
- David
of the executed commands
> > - is there some serious use to the
"mixed" and "lines" cases ? we really
don't want
> > to turn Jamfiles into parsing programs, don't
we.
>
> For "lines" (thought): for example we know
that program outputs our
> interested data on second or third line (gcc -v for
example). But this
> is probably better to be handled via external script,
keeping jam source
> simple.
>
> > - which default behaviour would you prefer ? (I'm
for "words", but YMMV)
>
> I am for "words" too (and only
"words"  ).
>
> --
> Sanel
> _______________________________________________
> jamming mailing list - jamming perforce.com
> http://maillist.perforce.com/mailman/listinfo/jamming
_______________________________________________
jamming mailing list - jammingperforce.com
http://maillist.perforce.com/mailman/listinfo/jamming
|