> > - compiler update
> > - boost update to 1.44
There's a typo in the log message (1.43),
but it IS boost 1.44.
Peter
Am Montag, den 25.10.2010, 20:30 +0200 schrieb Peter Kümmel:
> Am Montag, den 25.10.2010, 14:33 +0200 schrieb Pavel Sanda:
> > Most probably Peter,
> >
> > is there some way how to get rid of this:
>
> maybe
> - compiler update
> - boost update to 1.44
I've updated boost. (Updating boost was ne
Am Montag, den 25.10.2010, 14:33 +0200 schrieb Pavel Sanda:
> Most probably Peter,
>
> is there some way how to get rid of this:
maybe
- compiler update
- boost update to 1.44
- using Qt signals
- suppressing the warning -Wno-ignored-qualifiers
> CXXForkedCalls.o
> /usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc
Most probably Peter,
is there some way how to get rid of this:
CXXForkedCalls.o
/usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.3.2/include/g++-v4/tr1_impl/functional: In
static member function 'static void
boost::detail::function::void_function_obj_invoker2::invoke(boost::detail::function::function_bu
Angus Leeming wrote:
> I do believe that we've got there. Attached is the final patch with
> a description of the design embedded in forkedcontr.C.
>
> I'll commit this tomorrow to give everybody a fair chance to
> complain loudly.
>
> Many thanks to John Levon for holding my hand through all th
Kuba Ober wrote:
>> > I have a slightly guilty feeling that this patch will need to be
>> > re-implemented in a native Win32 port (SIGCHLD is not supported
>> > on Windows.) Any ideas about how it would look?
>
> I am repeating myself, for which I shall accept reasonable
> punishment (tm), yet is
> > I have a slightly guilty feeling that this patch will need to be
> > re-implemented in a native Win32 port (SIGCHLD is not supported on
> > Windows.) Any ideas about how it would look?
I am repeating myself, for which I shall accept reasonable punishment (tm),
yet is there anything wrong with
John Levon wrote:
> I couldn't know less about Windows.
Less than what? Less than me? Naa. That'd be negative amounts of
know.
--
Angus
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 11:48:51AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> No, of course not. Let's assume that I was confused and move on. Are
> you happy for me to commit the patch? If so, I'll do so this evening.
Why not?
> I have a slightly guilty feeling that this patch will need to be
> re-impleme
John Levon wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 11:21:44AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
>
>> I thought that I read that the handler could be implemented as a
>> separate thread?
>
> You'd be one up on me if POSIX allows this. Do you have a reference?
No, of course not. Let's assume that I was confus
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 11:21:44AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> I thought that I read that the handler could be implemented as a
> separate thread?
You'd be one up on me if POSIX allows this. Do you have a reference?
cheers
john
John Levon wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 10:55:11AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
>
>> 1 if (current_child == -1)
>> 2 return;
>>
>> // Block the SIGCHLD signal.
>> 3 sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, &newMask, &oldMask);
>>
>> // Wait for an existing signal to finis
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 10:55:11AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> 1 if (current_child == -1)
> 2 return;
>
> // Block the SIGCHLD signal.
> 3 sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, &newMask, &oldMask);
>
> // Wait for an existing signal to finish being processed.
> 4 w
Angus Leeming wrote:
> I do believe that we've got there. Attached is the final patch with
> a description of the design embedded in forkedcontr.C.
>
> I'll commit this tomorrow to give everybody a fair chance to
> complain loudly.
>
> Many thanks to John Levon for holding my hand through all th
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 10:31:02AM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > By all means burn my extremities, but I believe that tinyurl URLs
> > are cached, and expire after a certain time.
>
> At the very top of http://tinyurl.com :
>
> Welcome to TinyURL!?
>
> Are you sick of posting URLs in emails o
John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 10:40:27PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
>
>> I do believe that we've got there. Attached is the final patch with
>> a description of the design embedded in forkedcontr.C.
>
> By all means burn my extremities, but I believe that tinyurl URLs
> are cached
I do believe that we've got there. Attached is the final patch with a
description of the design embedded in forkedcontr.C.
I'll commit this tomorrow to give everybody a fair chance to complain
loudly.
Many thanks to John Levon for holding my hand through all this.
--
AngusIndex: src/ChangeLog
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 10:40:27PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> I do believe that we've got there. Attached is the final patch with a
> description of the design embedded in forkedcontr.C.
By all means burn my extremities, but I believe that tinyurl URLs are
cached, and expire after a certain t
On Thursday 31 October 2002 12:25 pm, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | I see that nobody has commented on my zombies patch.
> | Shall I just apply it?
>
> why not...
Ok. But before I do, I think that the current code leaks. I've got this
right too, haven't I? (See below).
Angus
// generate child
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| If execvp fails, shouldn't we ensure that the child returns an
| appropriate exit value? Wouldn't this also fix the crash we currently
| experience if execvp fails?
>
| #ifndef __EMX__
| pid_t cpid = ::fork();
| if (cpid == 0) { // child
|
If execvp fails, shouldn't we ensure that the child returns an
appropriate exit value? Wouldn't this also fix the crash we currently
experience if execvp fails?
#ifndef __EMX__
pid_t cpid = ::fork();
if (cpid == 0) { // child
execvp(syscmd, argv);
/
On Tuesday 19 February 2002 4:53 pm, Angus Leeming wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 February 2002 4:42 pm, Jules Bean wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 04:28:39PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 19 February 2002 4:18 pm, John Levon wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 03:59:09PM +, Angus
On Tuesday 19 February 2002 4:42 pm, Jules Bean wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 04:28:39PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 February 2002 4:18 pm, John Levon wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 03:59:09PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'd like to commit the attached pat
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 04:28:39PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 February 2002 4:18 pm, John Levon wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 03:59:09PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> >
> > > I'd like to commit the attached patch.
> >
> > are you trying to confuse :)
> >
> > +
On Tuesday 19 February 2002 4:18 pm, John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 03:59:09PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
>
> > I'd like to commit the attached patch.
>
> are you trying to confuse :)
>
> + if (pid<=0) { // Fork failed.
> + retval = 1;
Sorry, I
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 03:59:09PM +, Angus Leeming wrote:
> I'd like to commit the attached patch.
are you trying to confuse :)
+ if (pid<=0) { // Fork failed.
+ retval = 1;
please separate out the three cases after fork() !
as it is the comment is dead
I'd like to commit the attached patch.
It resurrects Asger's forked call wrapper and its controller as a working
entity by giving the controller a timer. I've re-worked the interface a
little and given the classes kill() methods too. I've also replaced the
pointer to a callback function with a
27 matches
Mail list logo
