Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 29: Line 29:  
* On Windows, <code>spawn</code> with <code>P_OVERLAY</code> also replaces the current process. But each process has a distinct id on Windows. I.e., the new process gets a different process id from the original one. Another process (like a terminal) waiting for the original process id will resume once the '''original''' process terminates. (The same happens with <code>exec</code>.) That leads to issues when trying to use the <code>octave.exe</code> wrapper on Windows.
 
* On Windows, <code>spawn</code> with <code>P_OVERLAY</code> also replaces the current process. But each process has a distinct id on Windows. I.e., the new process gets a different process id from the original one. Another process (like a terminal) waiting for the original process id will resume once the '''original''' process terminates. (The same happens with <code>exec</code>.) That leads to issues when trying to use the <code>octave.exe</code> wrapper on Windows.
 
* Could we use <code>spawn</code> with <code>P_WAIT</code> instead? IIUC, that would require passing the return code from the spawned process. What else?
 
* Could we use <code>spawn</code> with <code>P_WAIT</code> instead? IIUC, that would require passing the return code from the spawned process. What else?
 +
* [jwe] We have too many different ways of starting and interacting with subprocesses (popen, popen2, system, spawn, procbuf, procstream, etc.).  Is it possible to use just one C++ function to provide all the public functions we need to support?
    
== Previous topics ==
 
== Previous topics ==

Navigation menu