On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 11:20:37AM -0800, Bruce Korb wrote:
> Branko Hibej wrote:
> > Bruce Korb wrote:
>...
> > I'd like to stomp on this one before it happens.
> >
> > There exist systems where "fork" doesn't exist -- e.g., it's gruesomly
> > expensive and inconvenient to implement. Is the only for creating a
> > subprocess so that you can write "exit(1)" instead of "return 1"? If so,
> > please consider doing without subprocesses.
>
> Even WinNT and WinME have fork(). Only Win9x and earlier are that
> anemic. Are they in the target list?
Yes.
And are you sure they have fork()? I know they have "spawn" (fork/exec), but
hadn't heard about fork.
> Besides that, the `you can write'
> must refer to everyone in all client-side routines throughout SVN.
> It is easier and safer to cope with a dead child than rely on
> all routines doing the right thing. But, hey. If you want to count
> on all routines cleaning up correctly rather than letting fork/exit
> do it, cool. I was just thinking that with fork/exit you are certain
> to have bullet proof code. Deprive Win9x of the shell version, I say
> :-).
We get our clean up through APR pools. I don't see *any* problem from that
angle. Start a pool for each input line, clear it when the command is done.
Simple and clean. And it doesn't require subprocesses.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:14 2006