From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: Re: bug#141: Process sentinel not called in batch mode Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 15:24:04 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87hcd1kcmz.fsf@stupidchicken.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1210965899 30201 80.91.229.12 (16 May 2008 19:24:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 19:24:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 141@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com, rms@gnu.org, cyd@stupidchicken.com, eller.helmut@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, bug-submit-list@donarmstrong.com, bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri May 16 21:25:34 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Jx5YP-0001dQ-QA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 16 May 2008 21:25:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50469 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Jx5Xg-0008VI-5h for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 16 May 2008 15:24:36 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jx5Xb-0008V0-3R for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 May 2008 15:24:31 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Jx5Xa-0008Ug-LT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 May 2008 15:24:30 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60235 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Jx5XV-0008U9-Rm; Fri, 16 May 2008 15:24:25 -0400 Original-Received: from mercure.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.24.67]:54741) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Jx5XN-0003IT-Ju; Fri, 16 May 2008 15:24:17 -0400 Original-Received: from hidalgo.iro.umontreal.ca (hidalgo.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.50]) by mercure.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB0EF2CFC07; Fri, 16 May 2008 15:24:16 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from faina.iro.umontreal.ca (faina.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.26.177]) by hidalgo.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 744023FE1; Fri, 16 May 2008 15:24:04 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: by faina.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 4FC7641BEC; Fri, 16 May 2008 15:24:04 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 16 May 2008 22:08:35 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-DIRO-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-DIRO-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-DIRO-MailScanner-SpamCheck: n'est pas un polluriel, SpamAssassin (score=-2.82, requis 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -2.82) X-DIRO-MailScanner-From: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:97283 gmane.emacs.bugs:18021 Archived-At: >> >> This side I understand, but what about the other: why should we not >> >> check process status in the case where we are not redisplaying? >> >> > Because Emacs generally looks at process output only when it's idle? >> >> I don't follow: we're talking about when should >> wait_reading_process_output check status_notify. >> >> So to repeat/rephrase my question: why doesn't >> wait_reading_process_output call status_notify when it is passed a zero >> do_display? > Sorry, let me explain my line of thought in more detail: Emacs only > does a redisplay when it is idle. Emacs also checks input from > subprocesses when it is idle. If we are not in redisplay, it means > Emacs is not idle, and so it makes sense not to check for subprocess > output at that time. > Does this make any sense? But if we're in wait_reading_process_output, that means that idle or not, we're checking for process output, so why not check for process status changes as well? Stefan