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
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Tom Tanner (BLOOMBERG/ LONDON)
ttann...@bloomberg.net wrote:
NB Yes, I realise this will potentially break things, but why execute a
shell if you don't have to?
Fair point. I was once a Windoze user, who didn't realize what shell is
and just want things to just
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 4:16 AM, Tom Tanner (BLOOMBERG/ LONDON)
ttann...@bloomberg.net wrote:
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
I think we have had a number patches that tried to remove the shell form the
spawned command on linux and windows.
I am personally for it, given we have some way to do it when we do need the
shell.
Anatoly?
Do you think this might be a good place to tweak up your subprocess code? I
would be
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Dirk Bächle tshor...@gmx.de wrote:
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
