Re: [PATCH] (Updated) Exec git programs without using PATH.

From: Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se>
Date: Jan 12, 2006, 00:11 UTC
Message-ID: <43C59EC6.6070905@op5.se>
In-Reply-To: <7vk6d6qwmn.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 20 quoted lines

> Michal Ostrowski <mostrows@watson.ibm.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>I briefly tried to consider if I could hide the various fork()+exec()
>>sequences behind something like the run_command*() interfaces (which
>>would move us down the direction of something "spawn()"-like).  I found
>>that there's a lot of variation between the various paths in terms of
>>what happens between fork() and exec() on the various paths that does
>>not lend itself to such consolidation.
>>
>>I'd love to be convinced otherwise.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately I am with Michal on this one (both "eh, I do not
> think that is feasible" and "I'd love to be...").
> 
> The run_command*() interfaces and its users were the best I
> could come up with as far as such consolidations could go when I
> did it.
>

Not being entirely knowledgeable on what spawn() actually does and how its semantics differ from fork() and exec*() style API's (Google was depressingly unhelpful and wikipedia dredged up froglings...), I've got a decent "clone-lots-of-processes-and-multiplex-between-them" kind of library lying around. Would it be of any use?

 From the prototypes I've seen on spawn it doesn't seem to be much more 
than a fork() + execve(), either closing or dup2'ing all the 
file-descriptors, so I don't understand why that couldn't be implemented 
for git. Some pointers, anyone?

-- 
Andreas Ericsson                   andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB                             www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225                  Fax: +46 8-230231