-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 87
Add new API that can correctly wait for termination of processes forked with exec on Windows. #80
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
29 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
684ce18
GH77: Add scaffolding.
Mistuke 8080309
GH77: Fixed compilation
Mistuke d71248a
GH77: Add terminate job
Mistuke 57e0c7f
GH77: Update readme and export list.
Mistuke f6de652
GH77: Replaced system and rawSystem
Mistuke 3f440e2
GH77: Updated readme
Mistuke 86b273c
GH77: Fix tests
Mistuke e7827bb
GH77: Add failing test for Windows.
Mistuke 3bf217f
GH77: Working
Mistuke 282aa2e
GH77: Finish implementation.
Mistuke e89d6e1
GH77: Update testsuite.
Mistuke 2e3542d
GH77: update tests.
Mistuke eb85aac
GH77: fix tests
Mistuke 605ce3e
GH77: Accept output.
Mistuke 3a5935c
GH77: rewrote implementation.
Mistuke ae57e8c
GH77: fix compile errors.
Mistuke 7ef688e
GH77: Update readme.
Mistuke c3c067b
GH77: restored compatibility.
Mistuke 5a12fa4
GH77: rebased.
Mistuke e41616e
GH77: fix Posix.
Mistuke 5a0d7bc
GH77: remove typo.
Mistuke ad967f8
GH77: fix pattern matching posix.
Mistuke 2d6933b
GH77: replace <$> with fmap
Mistuke 4a423ad
GH77: Add appropriate ifdefs.
Mistuke 94a2140
GH77: fixed bug.
Mistuke 523b3dd
GH77: Added note.'
Mistuke 0f7b948
Updated based on review
Mistuke f8b53d8
rebased and set back WINDOWS_CCONV
Mistuke 9bcbaeb
fix build.
Mistuke File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Would it make sense to make these fields strict? It does not seem like laziness would ever be a virtue here. (I realize that will make it mismatched with the other constructors, still asking if it's the right thing to do.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm don't think so in this case, since the only way they're used is with a foreign value. I don't think you can ever get a lazy value from an FFI call right?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
My question is really: would we ever want the laziness here? I would generally make fields strict if there's no reason to do otherwise, since it excludes a potential source of bugs and confusion. Also, in this case, I think it can (slightly) help performance by allowing unpacking of a primitive type, but that's a minor concern. Either way, this isn't vital.