From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: MPS: Win64 testers? Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2024 09:10:07 +0300 Message-ID: <86wmkqkz0g.fsf@gnu.org> References: <86h6bxq3p3.fsf@gnu.org> <86sevho61y.fsf@gnu.org> <86ed70o90k.fsf@gnu.org> <86le17murx.fsf@gnu.org> <86y156kzh0.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="19661"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, pipcet@protonmail.com To: kien.n.quang@gmail.com Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Aug 09 08:11:03 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1scIq5-0004rY-0W for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 09 Aug 2024 08:11:01 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1scIpM-0005e2-Ff; Fri, 09 Aug 2024 02:10:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1scIpK-0005dp-Pv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Aug 2024 02:10:14 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1scIpK-0002Y4-3d; Fri, 09 Aug 2024 02:10:14 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=If6O5TY4xqv7USrz2PP/oKHEfh8dhXy3RUn8wGvXuow=; b=A89PCUeBl87E EVQgR431ebFEjprNU1uYT8ToB08ewLIooSx40XOG5j6gl0uXsgMHn5sOu3P0Ni0Cai1+8bUHCtAqS /3SPUaL+i23ISroFUyXt1SbO/Bb01bAHJGo7gWWgGgrTVpNq/j6FDuZVSWr5Y+/4AndRYVYK0O/oy 9vQ2USu6C9tWvRKJmY3Dk4TSzx3bS8fyHGKjo/TWeCZAIb5wfnlYAgiX//bsooAbUccyzCFfcslqV p5AK2Oh9ZrYTqP0jCDaLeK1qv4OWRLj33+L3YcH5jt/2+wVBrIbI8JGlQFNHKhZRtGC2coR/3bHsD hNsjdckmezxbOzrT8sr4Fg==; In-Reply-To: <86y156kzh0.fsf@gnu.org> (message from Eli Zaretskii on Fri, 09 Aug 2024 09:00:11 +0300) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:322547 Archived-At: > Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2024 09:00:11 +0300 > From: Eli Zaretskii > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, pipcet@protonmail.com > > > From: Quang Kien Nguyen > > Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 16:44:09 -0700 > > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, pipcet@protonmail.com > > > > > What ProcExp64 shows is a good sign, but I'd prefer to test also some > > > redirection like above, with Emacs and the sub-process both writing to > > > the same stdout/stderr stream, which would allow to verify positively > > > that they write to different places. > > > > Okay, I have tested with this lisp exp: > > (print 10 #'external-debugging-output) > > > > 10 is printed in the stdout/stderr on the console. > > > > Then try again with > > (start-process-shell-command "test" nil "emacs -Q --batch --eval > > \"(print 123123 #'external-debugging-output)\"") > > > > The child emacs process is spinned up but nothing is spewed to the > > current console > > output. Does that correct and prove that they don't share the handle? > > Not clearly enough. Consoles are tricky on Windows. It is better to > start Emacs with stderr redirected to a file (I've shown how to do > that in a previous message), and then see that what the child Emacs > writes to external-debugging-output does not appear in that file. > > Also, instead of start-process please use call-process. That's > because start-process redirects the stdout/stderr handles of the child > process to the pipe from which the parent Emacs process reads, and > that makes the experiment more complex and harder to reason about. And one more thing: when using "emacs --batch", it is easier to use 'message' to write to stderr; no need to 'print' via external-debugging-output.