[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: the state of the concurrency branch
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: the state of the concurrency branch |
Date: |
Mon, 26 Aug 2013 21:51:41 +0300 |
> From: Juanma Barranquero <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 19:04:46 +0200
> Cc: Tom Tromey <address@hidden>, Emacs discussions <address@hidden>
>
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Stefan Monnier
> <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> >> What would it take to merge the branch to trunk?
> >
> > It sounds like it's close to ready for merge, indeed.
>
> Well, it breaks the Windows build.
I fixed the compilation, but the stuff in process.c needs work: if you
invoke "M-x grep", Emacs aborts after Grep exits, here:
void
delete_read_fd (int fd)
{
eassert (fd < MAXDESC);
eassert (fd <= max_desc); <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
because max_desc is zero.
In general, I'd be grateful if Someone(TM) could explain the main
changes in process.c, as it's pretty basic stuff, and some of the
changes would originally not even compile, because some variables
involved in the changes were declared conditionally. Since I couldn't
grasp the rationale for the changes in the few minutes I had to spare,
I'm not sure I fixed the code correctly.
Finally, there's a warning in regex.c:
regex.c: In function `re_set_whitespace_regexp':
regex.c:1250: warning: assignment discards qualifiers from pointer target type
but I don't think it's Windows specific.
In sum, I'd say this branch still "needs work".
Thanks.
- the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/08/25
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Stefan Monnier, 2013/08/26
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Juanma Barranquero, 2013/08/26
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/08/26
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Stefan Monnier, 2013/08/26
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/08/26
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Paul Eggert, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Paul Eggert, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Tom Tromey, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Paul Eggert, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/08/27
- Re: the state of the concurrency branch, Paul Eggert, 2013/08/27