Date:	Sat, 12 Apr 2003 12:24:47 +0200
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be
Message-Id:	<2593-Sat12Apr2003122446+0300-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<000c01c2ff96$a96b1620$2302a8c0@dualzastai>
	(tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be)
Subject:	Re: New Flex versions
References:	<000c01c2ff96$a96b1620$2302a8c0 AT dualzastai>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> From: "Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 21:23:27 +0200
> 
> In trying to build it under windows (MSVC.NET, not cygwin),
> I found portability issues that also apply to DJGPP.
> Flex (like bison) now runs M4 in a subprocess to (pre)process
> the skeleton - it uses fork/exec/wait/pipe to use this, which
> will not work under DJGPP

But popen should be a goodd enough replacement here.

(Actually, the Flex build procedure should test whether a working
`fork' is available, and if not, use `popen'.)

> what's worse, it seems it does not always exec() in a fork

What on earth for?  A call to `fork' without `exec' means you have two
processes running Flex's own code.  What does each copy do after the
call to `fork'?

- Raw text -