Well, overhead or not, it would be nice to at least have *some* solution.
Currently, it just doesn't work.
I am sure that as soon the functionality is there, somebody will step in
to fake it fast.
On 15/08/12 06:25, Donn Cave wrote:
Quoth Alexander Kjeldaas alexander.kjeld...@gmail.com,
See
On 13 August 2012 23:49, Richard O'Keefe o...@cs.otago.ac.nz wrote:
On 13/08/2012, at 11:26 PM, Alexander Kjeldaas wrote:
This isn't that hard - a pipe shouldn't be needed anymore. Just require
a post-2003 glibc.
fexecve is a system call in most BSDs. It is also implemented in glibc
2012/8/14 Alexander Kjeldaas alexander.kjeld...@gmail.com:
On 13 August 2012 23:49, Richard O'Keefe o...@cs.otago.ac.nz wrote:
On 13/08/2012, at 11:26 PM, Alexander Kjeldaas wrote:
This isn't that hard - a pipe shouldn't be needed anymore. Just require
a post-2003 glibc.
fexecve
On 14 August 2012 17:22, Niklas Larsson metanik...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/8/14 Alexander Kjeldaas alexander.kjeld...@gmail.com:
On 13 August 2012 23:49, Richard O'Keefe o...@cs.otago.ac.nz wrote:
On 13/08/2012, at 11:26 PM, Alexander Kjeldaas wrote:
This isn't that hard - a
Quoth Alexander Kjeldaas alexander.kjeld...@gmail.com,
See access(2)
... a classic code smell in UNIX programming, for the same reasons.
We can solve this problem in an efficient way that works well, and equally
well, on any POSIX platform that supports F_CLOEXEC on pipes, and I can't
think of
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Niklas Hambüchen m...@nh2.me wrote:
I just came across the fact that running
createProcess (proc asdfasdf [])
with non-existing command asdfasdf returns perfectly fine handles.
I would expect an exception.
You can even hGetContents on stdout: You just
On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 23:18 -0700, Evan Laforge wrote:
Yes, I ran into the same thing a while back. The problem is that the
subprocess has already been forked off before it runs exec() and finds
out the file doesn't exist.
Given how astonishingly common it is to pass an invalid executable
In Unix, at least, check, then act is generally considered unwise:
1. Something can go wrong between checking and acting.
2. You might not be checking the right thing(s). In this case, the fact
that the file exists is not useful if you don't have permission to execute
it. You may not be able to
This isn't that hard - a pipe shouldn't be needed anymore. Just require a
post-2003 glibc.
fexecve is a system call in most BSDs. It is also implemented in glibc
using a /proc hack.
http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online/pages/man3/fexecve.3.html
Apparently, there are proposals/RFCs to
Quoth Evan Laforge qdun...@gmail.com,
...
... or at least make sure the haskell version doesn't suffer from
problems fixed in the python one.
Exactly. This morning I'm reading suggested solutions that would
work only some of the time, or on only some platforms, which wouldn't
be satisfactory
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Alexander Kjeldaas
alexander.kjeld...@gmail.com wrote:
This isn't that hard - a pipe shouldn't be needed anymore. Just require a
post-2003 glibc.
So, we are desupporting the *BSDs and OS X (and Solaris etc.) now? glibc
is only used on Linux and the Hurd
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Donn Cave d...@avvanta.com wrote:
Though speaking of platforms, I guess one large headache would be
what to do about Microsoft operating systems. Given the unusual
Microsoft provides APIs that work as is for this, by my understanding; it's
the POSIX
Quoth Brandon Allbery allber...@gmail.com,
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Donn Cave d...@avvanta.com wrote:
Though speaking of platforms, I guess one large headache would be
what to do about Microsoft operating systems. Given the unusual
Microsoft provides APIs that work as is for this,
On 13/08/2012, at 11:26 PM, Alexander Kjeldaas wrote:
This isn't that hard - a pipe shouldn't be needed anymore. Just require a
post-2003 glibc.
fexecve is a system call in most BSDs. It is also implemented in glibc using
a /proc hack.
fexecve is now in the Single Unix
I just came across the fact that running
createProcess (proc asdfasdf [])
with non-existing command asdfasdf returns perfectly fine handles.
I would expect an exception.
You can even hGetContents on stdout: You just get .
I find this highly counter-intuitive. Is this intended?
Thanks
15 matches
Mail list logo
