GNU bug report logs - #29454
wait_reading_process_output duplication

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: charles <at> aurox.ch (Charles A. Roelli)
Subject: bug#29454: closed (Re: bug#29454: wait_reading_process_output
 duplication)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 19:44:01 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your bug report

#29454: wait_reading_process_output duplication

which was filed against the emacs package, has been closed.

The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to 29454 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

-- 
29454: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=29454
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

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)

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

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?

Previous Next

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