Michael Schmitt wrote: > Dear Angus, > > could you please post "The remainder of Ruurd's changes" patch again? I > applied the patch a few seconds ago and was informed about two conflicts > by the patch tool.
That's because you're applying against a moving target. I take little bits of the patch and apply them to the tree. The bits I apply are often a little different to Ruurd's. So, I'd use the cvs version of the files that conflict if I were you. > Another question: What is the problem with "fork" that you mentioned? The unix "fork", "execvp" pair doesn't exist on Windows. We can launch a child process well enough by using "spawnvp", but then the unix "waitpid(..., NOHANG)" doesn't exist on Windows either, so LyX will never be informed when the process has ended. Re-write using the native API needed. > Does it mean that LyX 1.3/1.4 is not working on Win32? Sure it works. Things that require notification that a child process launched through the "forkedcall" class has finished won't work. Most everything else will. > > Or is it extraordinary slow? To run? No, shouldn't be. This is a native Windows executable using native Windows libraries. To compile? You bet it is slow. To link? Maaaaaaaaaaaannnn, is it sooooooooooo sloooooooooooow. -- Angus
