Re: split up process.c

[Dan Nicolaescu]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

>> Cc: address@hidden
>> From: Dan Nicolaescu <address@hidden>
>> Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 19:05:29 -0400
>> 
>> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>> >> Cc: address@hidden
>> >> From: Dan Nicolaescu <address@hidden>
>> >> 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.

Thanks!

> 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.)

IMO it should go to msdos.c unless that requires other important code changes.

> 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...

BTW, it's kind of funny that msdos.c has MSDOS and subpprocesses #ifdefs.