Mailing-List: contact stdcxx-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: string methods thread safety
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 12:21:28 +0300
Message-ID: <F92433E3D38672499C549EB615AFADA06BBF7C@exkiv.kyiv.vdiweb.com>
Thread-Topic: string methods thread safety
Thread-Index: AcasXWsAxt8YuXmkRUGNxI8zcQw5PgALxUKQ
From: "Farid Zaripov" <FaridZ@kyiv.vdiweb.com>
To: <stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:sebor@roguewave.com]=20
> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 3:34 AM
> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: string methods thread safety
>=20
> > // returns pid of the created process
> > // returns -1 if failed
> > // note: argv[0] should be equal to path
> > _TEST_EXPORT rw_pid_t=20
> > rw_process_create (const char* path, char* const argv []);
>=20
> I'm not sure about the second argument. Is it the most=20
> convenient interface?
  I just copied the interface from execv function. This interface is
useful when execute self copy
to prevent unnecessary translation of the array argv[] to the array of
char.

> Wouldn't something closer to=20
> rw_system() be easier to use? (If so, you might want to move=20
> rw_process_create to the .cpp file and make it static and=20
> call it from the new vararg function).
  Since rw_process_create just calls execv() after fork() I think that
it will be useful create a full set
of functions rw_process_createxx similar to a set of functions execxx.
Plus the function
rw_create_process (without suffixes) with the interface like
rw_system().

> > +    // the child process
> > +    execv (path, argv);
> > +
> > +    // the execvp returns only if an error occurs
> > +    rw_fatal (0, __FILE__, __LINE__, "execvp failed: :=20
> errno =3D %{#m}=20
> > + (%{m})");
> > +
> > +    exit (1);
>=20
> FYI: rw_fatal() doesn't return so there's no need to call exit().
>=20
> I'm not sure rw_fatal() is appropriate, though. The test=20
> might be able to continue with other things after a failure.
  I think in that case the test shouldn't to continue because after a
fork() succeeded
it will be a copy of the parent process. What for to continue a child
copy?

Farid.