From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: split up process.c [was: Re: Changes in process.c] Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 16:43:46 +0300 Message-ID: <83ocefa1v1.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83d3ux7ris.fsf@gnu.org> <83lj9lbtka.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1278769565 13777 80.91.229.12 (10 Jul 2010 13:46:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 13:46:05 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dan Nicolaescu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jul 10 15:46:03 2010 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 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXaNX-0003xz-9Y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:46:03 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39548 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OXaNW-0001sZ-QX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:46:02 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=56127 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OXaNO-0001re-No for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:45:55 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXaNN-0000kn-IP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:45:54 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:35913) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OXaNK-0000js-T2; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:45:51 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L5C00J00GHRU500@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 16:45:49 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.120.144]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L5C00J0CGWCAA20@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sat, 10 Jul 2010 16:45:49 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) 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:126991 Archived-At: > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Dan Nicolaescu > Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:05:29 -0400 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > >> From: Dan Nicolaescu > >> Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 14:52:39 -0400 > >> > >> Why don't we split the part for supporting MS-DOS into a different > >> file: process-no-subprocesses.c (or some better name) > >> > >> That makes the file easier to read, less clunky, and problems easier > >> to catch with a simple grep. > > > > It will still leave two implementations of the same code. > > That's better than what we currently have. I did something more radical (revno 100767): unify the two branches of process.c. There's now only one function, wait_reading_process_output, which has 2 different implementations. (I could easily have a single function with two different bodies conditioned by `subprocesses', or I could move the second implementation to msdos.c, if people prefer that. But both alternatives looked no cleaner, and the latter would even make more maintenance headaches, IMO.) Other than this single function, the rest is unified, at the cost of a few "#ifdef subprocesses" here and there. Not surprisingly, I found and fixed a few bugs along the way...