On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Robert Kern <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 7:28 PM, David Cournapeau <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Charles R Harris < > [email protected]> wrote: > > >> Sure, give it a shot. Looks like subprocess.Popen was intended to > replace os.system in any case. > > > > Except that output is not 'real time' with straight Popen, and doing so > reliably on every platform (cough - windows - cough) is not completely > trivial. You also have to handle buffered output, etc... That code is very > fragile, so this would be quite a lot of testing to change, and I am not > sure it worths it. > > It doesn't have to be "real time". Just use .communicate() and print out > the stdout and stderr to their appropriate streams after the subprocess > finishes. > Indeed, it does not have to be, but that's useful for debugging compilation issues (not so much for numpy itself, but for some packages which have files that takes a very long time to build, like scipy.sparsetools or bottleneck). That's a minor point compared to the potential issues when building on windows, though. David
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
