On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:33:06PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> On Thursday 20 September 2001 11:53 am, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > IMHO, these discrepancies should be hidden by our API. E.g. we aught to
> > provide both an apr_status_t (with the return results matched up across
> > platforms, a
The status should be the result of the WEXITSTATUS macro for Unix then.
STILL_ACTIVE will never be returned on Win32, since we just got finished
waiting for the process to have exited.
Bill
"Though we are not now that strength that in old days moved Earth and
Heaven, that which we are we are; On
On Thursday 20 September 2001 11:53 am, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> IMHO, these discrepancies should be hidden by our API. E.g. we aught to
> provide both an apr_status_t (with the return results matched up across
> platforms, and added to our APR_statuses lists) and the processes' exit
> code.
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 01:53:54PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> IMHO, these discrepancies should be hidden by our API. E.g. we aught to
> provide both an apr_status_t (with the return results matched up across
> platforms, and added to our APR_statuses lists) and the processes' exit code.
IMHO, these discrepancies should be hidden by our API. E.g. we aught to
provide both an apr_status_t (with the return results matched up across
platforms, and added to our APR_statuses lists) and the processes' exit code.
APR_SUCCESS would mean the process _has_ terminated, here's the exit code
That would seem to make lots of sense.
Bill
"Though we are not now that strength that in old days moved Earth and
Heaven, that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts made
weak by time and fate but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find,
and not to yield." -- Tennyson
-
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:27:35PM -0700, Jon Travis wrote:
> BZzzzt. The attached code registers a cleanup from within a cleanup, and
> does so 'correctly'. See the program attached at the bottom, which behaves
> incorrectly. It is simple code, but not knowing that a given
> function registers
On Thursday 20 September 2001 10:25 am, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
This is the right solution, +1.
Ryan
> The OC child logic is broken WRT the 'id' field. I noticed the bogosity
> grepping for Win32 casts.
>
> We have no reason _not_ to simply carry the apr_proc_t * instead of 'id'.
>
> Commen
The OC child logic is broken WRT the 'id' field. I noticed the bogosity
grepping for Win32 casts.
We have no reason _not_ to simply carry the apr_proc_t * instead of 'id'.
Comments?
Bill
brokenoc.patch
Description: Binary data
Hi all,
I'm the one sort of reponsible for asking for return codes in
apr_proc_wait (and thanks for how quickly they were added), but now I am
concerned about their portability.
My MSDN page for GetExitCodeProcess says it retrurns either
STILL_ACTIVE or the return code for the process. Meanwhi
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 11:14:00PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>...
> How would this patch work? This seems like a reasonable change.
>
> Win32 doesn't implement wait_all from what I can tell, so I'm not
> sure how to get the return value. OtherBill or Ryan can probably
> figure this out. -
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:55:56PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:48:30PM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
> > Following the pattern of the apr_hash_t iterator is fine with me, too.
> >
> > But I just noticed a small problem with the apr_hash_t iterator:
> >
> > APR_DECLAR
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 12:37:55AM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
> [forwarded thread from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Kevin Pilch-Bisson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 19 September 2001 21:46
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Greg Stein; Sander Striker; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 09:48:30PM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
> Following the pattern of the apr_hash_t iterator is fine with me, too.
>
> But I just noticed a small problem with the apr_hash_t iterator:
>
> APR_DECLARE(void) apr_hash_this(apr_hash_index_t *hi, const void **key,
>
Ian Holsman wrote:
On Wed, 2001-09-19 at 14:28, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 12:25:36PM -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
The original approach that I posted was a traditional iterator object:
typedef struct apr_table_iter_t apr_table_iter_t;
apr_table_iter_t * apr_table_iter_make(apr_
APRUTIL LIBRARY STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2001/07/13 03:51:20 $]
Release:
2.0a9 : released December 12, 2000
RELEASE SHOWSTOPPERS:
* Need apu_compat.h to track the latest renames
Status: someone want to step up to diff na
APACHE PORTABLE RUNTIME (APR) LIBRARY STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2001/09/19 15:27:16 $]
Release:
2.0a9 : released December 12, 2000
2.0a8 : released November 20, 2000
2.0a7 : released October 8, 2000
2.0a6 : released August 18, 2000
2
17 matches
Mail list logo
