Re: Patches Applied for 21.1.8

>>>>> "Craig" == Craig Lanning <CraigL(a)DyCon.com&gt; writes: >> Craig, >> >> I'm confident I found the problem. If so, then it's not >> related to 95/98 vs. NT. Craig> I'm afraid not :-( Hi Craig, I'm so far past my wit's end, that I'm getting serious again! I have revisited my options and settled for minimal change. This is the realistic route to get this into 21.1.8 (no, I havn't given up just yet, I hope you haven't either).

This patch is against 21.2-b19 again, but it's smaller. I have reverted all my indentation changes (which make the functions I touched comply with GNU formatting standards). Reviewing each patch hunk I have re-implemented the whole thing. I invert 95/98 PIDs in create_child and keep them that way when converting to Lisp_Int. Everywhere Lisp_Int PIDs are converted back to int, I invert them (when on OS_WIN95) before use. Wherever I call OpenProcess I invert the PID for OS_WIN95. I have proven my patch to be correct by inverting all tests from if (os_subtype == OS_WIN95) to if (os_subtype != OS_WIN95) Now I get these warnings on NT: Fcall_process_internal.child_setup returns PID -306, using PID 306 create_child.CreateProcess abs(PID) -343 > EMACS_INT_MAX (2147483647) Fcall_process_internal.child_setup returns PID -343, using PID 343 create_child.CreateProcess abs(PID) -282 > EMACS_INT_MAX (2147483647) Fcall_process_internal.child_setup returns PID -282, using PID 282 create_child.CreateProcess abs(PID) -280 > EMACS_INT_MAX (2147483647) Fcall_process_internal.child_setup returns PID -280, using PID 280 create_child.CreateProcess abs(PID) -146 > EMACS_INT_MAX (2147483647) Fcall_process_internal.child_setup returns PID -146, using PID 146 create_child.CreateProcess abs(PID) -298 > EMACS_INT_MAX (2147483647) Fcall_process_internal.child_setup returns PID -298, using PID 298 BUT, call-process still works, returning correct exit status and never obtaining invalid process handles. This proves that negative PIDs can be passed to Lisp and back. On Windows 95/98 we will need the opposite, but that requires one bit less. I had to disable a meaningless fork test in src/callproc.c for WINDOWSNT, which I intend to leave in: #ifndef WINDOWSNT if (pid < 0) { if (fd[0] >= 0) close (fd[0]); report_file_error ("Doing fork", Qnil); } #endif Please try this patch and, by all means, report success!

Are there any more testers on 95/98 out there? Testing with and without USE_UNION_TYPE is desirable.

Please refer to earlier test-cases in this thread and send me their output, as well as any STDERR of XEmacs itself. Thanks in advance! Adrian >> Let me guess that you are NOT building with USE_UNION_TYPE. >> Well, I am. Craig> That is correct. [Patch deleted]