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

[David Daney <ddaney at avtrex dot com>]

Bryce McKinlay wrote:
> 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. However, the native part will need to be converted from JNI to 
> CNI, because to use JNI we'd have to have a separate shared libary for 
> it. Translating the native code should be relatively straight forward 
> (CNI is easy) and I'm happy to help out here if needed.
> 

My general idea would be to:

a) Replace PosixProcess.java with the contents of VMProcess.java, but
keep the PosixProcess.java filename and ConcreteProcess class name.

b) Port the native code to CNI and put it in natPosixProcess.cc


Q: Would it be better to keep VMProcess.java as is (as much as possible)
and change natRuntime.cc to use VMProcess instead of ConcreteProcess?

Q:  Can we just take Classpath code and change the license to
LIBGCJ_LICENSE license (i.e. GPL + exception)

David Daney