View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
December 09, 2012
Re: New std.process revival
On 12/9/12, Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/6/12, Alex Rønne Petersen <alex@lycus.org> wrote:
>> (I'm particularly worried that I may have broken the
>> Windows build).
>
> Does anyone know the URL of the original repository? Some symbols are
> missing, but I don't think it's Alex'es fault.
>

Ok I think I found it: https://github.com/schveiguy/phobos/tree/new-std-process
December 09, 2012
Re: New std.process revival
On 12/9/12, Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/6/12, Alex Rønne Petersen <alex@lycus.org> wrote:
>> (I'm particularly worried that I may have broken the
>> Windows build).

std/c/stdio.d is missing _fdToHandle, see steven's repo and just copy
the file over to the new one.

I'm having a hard time figuring out how to "fork" your own fork, IOW I
have no idea how to make pull requests towards your own fork of
phobos. Your name doesn't show up in the base repo dropdown list when
I try to make a pull, otherwise I'd be of more help.
December 10, 2012
Re: New std.process revival
On 2012-12-09 19:34, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:

> I'm having a hard time figuring out how to "fork" your own fork, IOW I
> have no idea how to make pull requests towards your own fork of
> phobos. Your name doesn't show up in the base repo dropdown list when
> I try to make a pull, otherwise I'd be of more help.

Perhaps manually create a new repository at github. Initialize it with 
the old repository.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
December 10, 2012
Re: New std.process revival
06.12.2012 22:40, Alex Rønne Petersen пишет:
> Hi,
>
> I decided to take a stab at reviving the new std.process written by Lars
> T. Kyllingstad and Steven Schveighoffer.
>
> The result is here:
> https://github.com/alexrp/phobos/tree/new-std-process-update
>
> I decided to extract the work into new commits because rebasing the old
> branch in Lars's repo was way too cumbersome after so many months (and
> that branch also had a lot of merge commits). The code is obviously not
> written by me; all I did was a couple of build and test fixes.
>
> It currently works on 32-bit and 64-bit Linux. It would be great if
> someone could take it for a spin on OS X, FreeBSD, and Windows to see
> how it fares there (I'm particularly worried that I may have broken the
> Windows build).
>
> Lars or Steven, would either of you be willing to go through the review
> process with this module? I sent the druntime changes upstream a while
> back, so the Phobos changes are really all that remain in order to have
> it included.
>

Please, confirm that such std.process implementation and its 
functionality (process and threads listing etc., all what you have in 
.Net once finished) is not needed:
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/k8v45g$15o6$1@digitalmars.com

-- 
Денис В. Шеломовский
Denis V. Shelomovskij
December 10, 2012
Re: New std.process revival
On 10-12-2012 10:04, Denis Shelomovskij wrote:
> 06.12.2012 22:40, Alex Rønne Petersen пишет:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I decided to take a stab at reviving the new std.process written by Lars
>> T. Kyllingstad and Steven Schveighoffer.
>>
>> The result is here:
>> https://github.com/alexrp/phobos/tree/new-std-process-update
>>
>> I decided to extract the work into new commits because rebasing the old
>> branch in Lars's repo was way too cumbersome after so many months (and
>> that branch also had a lot of merge commits). The code is obviously not
>> written by me; all I did was a couple of build and test fixes.
>>
>> It currently works on 32-bit and 64-bit Linux. It would be great if
>> someone could take it for a spin on OS X, FreeBSD, and Windows to see
>> how it fares there (I'm particularly worried that I may have broken the
>> Windows build).
>>
>> Lars or Steven, would either of you be willing to go through the review
>> process with this module? I sent the druntime changes upstream a while
>> back, so the Phobos changes are really all that remain in order to have
>> it included.
>>
>
> Please, confirm that such std.process implementation and its
> functionality (process and threads listing etc., all what you have in
> .Net once finished) is not needed:
> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/k8v45g$15o6$1@digitalmars.com
>

I don't follow?

-- 
Alex Rønne Petersen
alex@lycus.org
http://lycus.org
December 10, 2012
Re: New std.process revival
On 06-12-2012 23:25, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2012-12-06 19:40, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I decided to take a stab at reviving the new std.process written by Lars
>> T. Kyllingstad and Steven Schveighoffer.
>>
>> The result is here:
>> https://github.com/alexrp/phobos/tree/new-std-process-update
>>
>> I decided to extract the work into new commits because rebasing the old
>> branch in Lars's repo was way too cumbersome after so many months (and
>> that branch also had a lot of merge commits). The code is obviously not
>> written by me; all I did was a couple of build and test fixes.
>>
>> It currently works on 32-bit and 64-bit Linux. It would be great if
>> someone could take it for a spin on OS X, FreeBSD, and Windows to see
>> how it fares there (I'm particularly worried that I may have broken the
>> Windows build).
>
> On Mac OS X, move the declaration of "environ" out of the Environment
> class, it's used by two global functions.
>
> Also, running the unit tests for Phobos, I get this:
>
> http://pastebin.com/GrDrHMxi
>
> I don't know if it has anything to do with the new std.process module or
> not. This is all for 32bit.
>

Can you run it on 64-bit too? Does the output differ?

Can you try to adjust the code in std.stdio a bit so it prints the 
actual exit code pclose() returns?

-- 
Alex Rønne Petersen
alex@lycus.org
http://lycus.org
December 10, 2012
Re: New std.process revival
On 12/09/2012 07:34 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> I'm having a hard time figuring out how to "fork" your own fork, IOW I
> have no idea how to make pull requests towards your own fork of
> phobos. Your name doesn't show up in the base repo dropdown list when
> I try to make a pull, otherwise I'd be of more help.

Create a new branch, AFAIK you can create pull requests between 
different branches of the same repo.

-- 
Mike Wey
December 10, 2012
Re: New std.process revival
On 2012-12-10 17:59, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:

> Can you run it on 64-bit too? Does the output differ?

Same output.

> Can you try to adjust the code in std.stdio a bit so it prints the
> actual exit code pclose() returns?

It prints "-1".

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
December 10, 2012
Re: New std.process revival
10.12.2012 20:58, Alex Rønne Petersen пишет:
> On 10-12-2012 10:04, Denis Shelomovskij wrote:
>> 06.12.2012 22:40, Alex Rønne Petersen пишет:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I decided to take a stab at reviving the new std.process written by Lars
>>> T. Kyllingstad and Steven Schveighoffer.
>>>
>>> The result is here:
>>> https://github.com/alexrp/phobos/tree/new-std-process-update
>>>
>>> I decided to extract the work into new commits because rebasing the old
>>> branch in Lars's repo was way too cumbersome after so many months (and
>>> that branch also had a lot of merge commits). The code is obviously not
>>> written by me; all I did was a couple of build and test fixes.
>>>
>>> It currently works on 32-bit and 64-bit Linux. It would be great if
>>> someone could take it for a spin on OS X, FreeBSD, and Windows to see
>>> how it fares there (I'm particularly worried that I may have broken the
>>> Windows build).
>>>
>>> Lars or Steven, would either of you be willing to go through the review
>>> process with this module? I sent the druntime changes upstream a while
>>> back, so the Phobos changes are really all that remain in order to have
>>> it included.
>>>
>>
>> Please, confirm that such std.process implementation and its
>> functionality (process and threads listing etc., all what you have in
>> .Net once finished) is not needed:
>> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/k8v45g$15o6$1@digitalmars.com
>>
>
> I don't follow?
>

What is your question?
I already wrote all my reasons in "[RFC] Modules for processes 
manipulation" thread linked above. Nobody was interested in. So I want 
to be sure my variant is unneeded not just accidentally missed. If I'm 
the only person here who would like to see at least every option .Net 
Framework offer for process manipulation it's OK and I will stop asking 
about it.

-- 
Денис В. Шеломовский
Denis V. Shelomovskij
December 10, 2012
Re: New std.process revival
On 10-12-2012 23:18, Denis Shelomovskij wrote:
> 10.12.2012 20:58, Alex Rønne Petersen пишет:
>> On 10-12-2012 10:04, Denis Shelomovskij wrote:
>>> 06.12.2012 22:40, Alex Rønne Petersen пишет:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I decided to take a stab at reviving the new std.process written by
>>>> Lars
>>>> T. Kyllingstad and Steven Schveighoffer.
>>>>
>>>> The result is here:
>>>> https://github.com/alexrp/phobos/tree/new-std-process-update
>>>>
>>>> I decided to extract the work into new commits because rebasing the old
>>>> branch in Lars's repo was way too cumbersome after so many months (and
>>>> that branch also had a lot of merge commits). The code is obviously not
>>>> written by me; all I did was a couple of build and test fixes.
>>>>
>>>> It currently works on 32-bit and 64-bit Linux. It would be great if
>>>> someone could take it for a spin on OS X, FreeBSD, and Windows to see
>>>> how it fares there (I'm particularly worried that I may have broken the
>>>> Windows build).
>>>>
>>>> Lars or Steven, would either of you be willing to go through the review
>>>> process with this module? I sent the druntime changes upstream a while
>>>> back, so the Phobos changes are really all that remain in order to have
>>>> it included.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Please, confirm that such std.process implementation and its
>>> functionality (process and threads listing etc., all what you have in
>>> .Net once finished) is not needed:
>>> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/k8v45g$15o6$1@digitalmars.com
>>>
>>
>> I don't follow?
>>
>
> What is your question?
> I already wrote all my reasons in "[RFC] Modules for processes
> manipulation" thread linked above. Nobody was interested in. So I want
> to be sure my variant is unneeded not just accidentally missed. If I'm
> the only person here who would like to see at least every option .Net
> Framework offer for process manipulation it's OK and I will stop asking
> about it.
>

No, I think there are a lot of people who want this. D is basically 
useless for scripting work because of its poor process manipulation support.

But keep in mind that your module is very Windows-centric and most 
people who deal with shell scripting work are on POSIX systems (a 
generalization, of course, but mostly true). I think that's why you 
didn't get much input.

-- 
Alex Rønne Petersen
alex@lycus.org
http://lycus.org
1 2 3
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home