GNU bug report logs - #29454
wait_reading_process_output duplication

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 29454 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 29454 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: charles <at> aurox.ch (Charles A. Roelli)
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: wait_reading_process_output duplication
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 10:45:53 +0100

Looks like these two blocks are duplicated in
wait_reading_process_output in process.c:

5628 #ifdef WINDOWSNT
5629 	      /* FIXME: Is this special case still needed?  */
5630 	      /* Note that we cannot distinguish between no input
5631 		 available now and a closed pipe.
5632 		 With luck, a closed pipe will be accompanied by
5633 		 subprocess termination and SIGCHLD.  */
5634 	      else if (nread == 0 && !NETCONN_P (proc) && !SERIALCONN_P (proc)
5635 		       && !PIPECONN_P (proc))
5636 		;
5637 #endif

5664 	      /* If we can detect process termination, don't consider the
5665 		 process gone just because its pipe is closed.  */
5666 	      else if (nread == 0 && !NETCONN_P (proc) && !SERIALCONN_P (proc)
5667 		       && !PIPECONN_P (proc))
5668 		;

Can the first be deleted?

Message #8 received at 29454 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: charles <at> aurox.ch (Charles A. Roelli)
Cc: 29454 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#29454: wait_reading_process_output duplication
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:54:00 +0200

> Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 10:45:53 +0100
> From: charles <at> aurox.ch (Charles A. Roelli)
> 
> Looks like these two blocks are duplicated in
> wait_reading_process_output in process.c:
> 
> 5628 #ifdef WINDOWSNT
> 5629 	      /* FIXME: Is this special case still needed?  */
> 5630 	      /* Note that we cannot distinguish between no input
> 5631 		 available now and a closed pipe.
> 5632 		 With luck, a closed pipe will be accompanied by
> 5633 		 subprocess termination and SIGCHLD.  */
> 5634 	      else if (nread == 0 && !NETCONN_P (proc) && !SERIALCONN_P (proc)
> 5635 		       && !PIPECONN_P (proc))
> 5636 		;
> 5637 #endif
> 
> 5664 	      /* If we can detect process termination, don't consider the
> 5665 		 process gone just because its pipe is closed.  */
> 5666 	      else if (nread == 0 && !NETCONN_P (proc) && !SERIALCONN_P (proc)
> 5667 		       && !PIPECONN_P (proc))
> 5668 		;
> 
> Can the first be deleted?

Yes.  (The second was originally conditioned on SIGCHLD, which is why
it was separate.)

Thanks.

Message #13 received at 29454-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: charles <at> aurox.ch (Charles A. Roelli)
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 29454-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#29454: wait_reading_process_output duplication
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 20:44:27 +0100

> Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:54:00 +0200
> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
> CC: 29454 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
> 
> > Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 10:45:53 +0100
> > From: charles <at> aurox.ch (Charles A. Roelli)
> > 
> > Looks like these two blocks are duplicated in
> > wait_reading_process_output in process.c:
> > 
> > 5628 #ifdef WINDOWSNT
> > 5629 	      /* FIXME: Is this special case still needed?  */
> > 5630 	      /* Note that we cannot distinguish between no input
> > 5631 		 available now and a closed pipe.
> > 5632 		 With luck, a closed pipe will be accompanied by
> > 5633 		 subprocess termination and SIGCHLD.  */
> > 5634 	      else if (nread == 0 && !NETCONN_P (proc) && !SERIALCONN_P (proc)
> > 5635 		       && !PIPECONN_P (proc))
> > 5636 		;
> > 5637 #endif
> > 
> > 5664 	      /* If we can detect process termination, don't consider the
> > 5665 		 process gone just because its pipe is closed.  */
> > 5666 	      else if (nread == 0 && !NETCONN_P (proc) && !SERIALCONN_P (proc)
> > 5667 		       && !PIPECONN_P (proc))
> > 5668 		;
> > 
> > Can the first be deleted?
> 
> Yes.  (The second was originally conditioned on SIGCHLD, which is why
> it was separate.)
> 
> Thanks.

Thanks, it's pushed to master.

  commit 6ec5d497b6623e612ca6936ac848234725d4fc61
  Date:   Sun Nov 26 20:18:54 2017 +0100

  * src/process.c (wait_reading_process_output): Deduplicate check.

  (Bug#29454)

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.