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

[Bryce McKinlay <mckinlay at redhat dot com>]

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.

Regards

Bryce