On 02.04.2014 10:16, Tom Tanner (BLOOMBERG/ LONDON) wrote:
I think the test round about line 144 needs to be a little different.
For instance, aix and solaris (at least the versions we use at work)
claim to support posix_spawn and the man pages are identical, but they
don't identify themselves as linux
One other question that comes to mind from time to time: do we
/really/ need to spawn a shell just to execute a command. Obviously if
it include '>' and other shell specials, you should. I'd really like
to make it do something like perl:
If you pass an array [ 'prog', '$TARGET', '$SOURCE' ] it doesn't
execute a shell. Otherwise (passing a single string), it will examine
for special characters, and if none are found it will split on white
space and execute that, or it will pass that line to the shell.
NB Yes, I realise this will potentially break things, but why execute
a shell if you don't have to?
This idea may be feasible, but I'd rather try to get the actual shell
spawning to be as fast as possible. We have some valid approaches for
this, so let's try them out...maybe one of them is fast enough, such
that we don't have to care about the "extra" work mentioned above
anymore. Speeding up the spawn/fork stuff would be more transparent to
the user than trying to "detect" which commands need a full shell and
which don't.
Dirk
_______________________________________________
Scons-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
