From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Paul Eggert Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: wait_reading_process_ouput hangs in certain cases (w/ patches) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 21:27:05 -0800 Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: References: <83lgjz8eiy.fsf@gnu.org> <831slp98ut.fsf@gnu.org> <83tvyj62qg.fsf@gnu.org> <83r2tetf90.fsf@gnu.org> <5150d198-8dd3-9cf4-5914-b7e945294452@binary-island.eu> <83tvy7s6wi.fsf@gnu.org> <83inemrqid.fsf@gnu.org> <398f8d17-b727-d5d6-4a31-772448c7ca0d@binary-island.eu> <83bmk6n9hs.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1510550869 11148 195.159.176.226 (13 Nov 2017 05:27:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 05:27:49 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 Cc: ml_emacs-lists@binary-island.eu, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 13 06:27:44 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eE7Hb-0002QM-2R for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 06:27:43 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52691 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eE7Hg-00071a-Lo for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:27:48 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52481) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eE7H6-00071U-HF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:27:13 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eE7H5-0004IR-QQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:27:12 -0500 Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:46702) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eE7H1-0004Hj-Vy; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:27:08 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84C12161103; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 21:27:06 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id e57D0o0gO-nm; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 21:27:05 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCD0A161104; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 21:27:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id PQvjN4ZeiaLm; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 21:27:05 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.9] (unknown [47.154.30.119]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A916E1610DB; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 21:27:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <83bmk6n9hs.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Language: en-US X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 131.179.128.68 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:220132 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>> + if (wait_proc >>> + && wait_proc->infd_num_bytes_read !=3D initial_wait_pr= oc_num_bytes_read) >>> + got_some_output =3D 1; >> Similarly for the other change that assigns to got_some_output. > You can read up-thread why I'm firmly against doing that. It doesn't explain why you're so firm about it since the commentary clear= ly=20 states that 1 is OK, but at any rate one could use this instead: if (wait_proc) { unsigned int diff =3D (wait_proc->infd_num_bytes_read - initial_wait_proc_num_bytes_read); if (diff !=3D 0) got_some_output =3D diff; } which is still a bit simpler than what was proposed. Anyway there's no ne= ed to=20 refer to ISO/IEC 9899:1999 chapter and verse here, any more than there's = a need=20 to refer to it in the countless other places that we rely on it.