On 17/02/2014 8:34 p.m., Francesco Chemolli wrote: > > On 17 Feb 2014, at 08:03, Amos Jeffries <squ...@treenet.co.nz> wrote: > >> On 15/02/2014 6:47 a.m., Francesco Chemolli wrote: >>> >>> On 14 Feb 2014, at 13:24, Amos Jeffries <squ...@treenet.co.nz> wrote: >>> >>>> Just to kick this further along. I've put together the proposal in patch >>>> form. >>>> >>>> Anyone game to test the SMP support is working properly with "-M >>>> foreground" when this is applied? >>>> >>>> I'm also beginning to think we are needing to add getopts_long() support >>>> and just use "--foreground" for the no-daemon mode. >>>> If the attached patch actually works regardign SMP and we agree on the >>>> user-visible bit I'm happy to add that update for the command line and >>>> commit. >>> >>> I'd also add an option to keep the current -N behaviour, such as uniproc, >>> single-proc, one-process or something similar. >>> What do you think? >> >> With the proposed patch -N is still working as before. But with an added >> deprecation notice to encourage all those who just want foreground >> semantics without the debug limits to use the new way. > > .. but if it's deprecated, what will it be eventually replaced with? The > no-fork behaviour may be still desirable for some activities, such as > debugging. >
A combination of some specific debug option(s) to be decided in the debug thread, and the forground/background option here. Most of the uses though are not for debugging but only for causing the foreground behaviour. Amos
