Re: [RFC] Fix PosixProcess by porting VMProcess from Classpath...

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

Bryce McKinlay writes:
 > Andrew Haley wrote:
 > 
 > >Bryce McKinlay writes:
 > > > David Daney wrote:
 > > > 
 > > > >It is said that:
 > > > >
 > > > >http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11801
 > > > >
 > > > >Could be fixed by using VMProcess from Classpath instead of the current
 > > > >PosixProcess.
 > > > >
 > > > >There are several other problems that I have been experiencing related
 > > > >to not reaping terminated or failed Processes that would also be fixed.
 > > > >  
 > > > >
 > > > >Q1: Does this seem like a good idea?.
 > > > >  
 > > > >
 > > > 
 > > > Yes. If the general opinion is that Classpath's VMProcess is better than 
 > > > ours, then I am in favour of switching to/merging with the classpath 
 > > > version.
 > >
 > >Well, obviously that's true.  However, we might also break things with
 > >this change, so we need really to be convinced that it is better in
 > >all respects.  Having a single base implementation seems like a good
 > >this, certainly.
 > >
 > Our Process implementation is broken by design (see PR 11801), so
 > its pretty clear that a rewrite is required.  Given that, we might
 > as well start with an existing implementation - and if this means
 > another class can be merged with Classpath, then all the better.

I agree.  However, I'd be interested to know if Classpath's
implementation of Process is stable and if anyone has ever used it for
anything much.  Forewarned is forearmed, as they say.

Andrew.