[vms] extending Lisp_Process

[vms] extending Lisp_Process

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

for vms subprocess support, i would like to integrate Richard
Levitte's external VMS_PROC_STUFF structure into the Lisp_Process
structure.  is that ok?  something like:

struct Lisp_Process
  {
#ifdef VMS
    struct VMS_PROC_STUFF *vms_proc_stuff;
    /* etc */
#endif
    /* existing Lisp_Process members here */
  };

(this example does not actually integrate VMS_PROC_STUFF members,
but you get the idea i hope.)

thi

Re: [vms] extending Lisp_Process

[Stefan Monnier]

> for vms subprocess support, i would like to integrate Richard
> Levitte's external VMS_PROC_STUFF structure into the Lisp_Process
> structure.  is that ok?  something like:
> 
> struct Lisp_Process
>   {
> #ifdef VMS
>     struct VMS_PROC_STUFF *vms_proc_stuff;
>     /* etc */
> #endif
>     /* existing Lisp_Process members here */
>   };
> 
> (this example does not actually integrate VMS_PROC_STUFF members,
> but you get the idea i hope.)

I don't see a problem with it, other than the fact that you won't want
to include it at the very beginning since the GC assumes that the
structure starts with a `size' and a `next' field like all other
vectors and VectorLike structs.


	Stefan

Re: [vms] extending Lisp_Process

[Thien-Thi Nguyen]

"Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/emacs@cs.yale.edu> writes:

   I don't see a problem with it, other than the fact that you won't want
   to include it at the very beginning since the GC assumes that the
   structure starts with a `size' and a `next' field like all other
   vectors and VectorLike structs.

good thing to keep in mind.  thanks for the tip.

thi

Re: [vms] extending Lisp_Process

[Richard Stallman]

    for vms subprocess support, i would like to integrate Richard
    Levitte's external VMS_PROC_STUFF structure into the Lisp_Process
    structure.  is that ok?  something like:

    struct Lisp_Process
      {
    #ifdef VMS
	struct VMS_PROC_STUFF *vms_proc_stuff;
	/* etc */
    #endif
	/* existing Lisp_Process members here */
      };

As long as it's in a VMS conditional, I have no objection.