Ok then :)
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Amos Jeffries <squ...@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
> 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
--
Francesco
