llvm dev - Jul 2009 - [LLVMdev] [PATCH 2/2] Make Program::ExecuteNoWait return a process ID.

Hi Daniel,

Daniel Dunbar <daniel <at> zuster.org> writes:
> 
> Ultimately I think a better API would be to provide a generic class
> which represents an executed operating system process, and includes
> operations to wait for its completion, redirect its IO, communicate
> with it, etc. This would be a big improvement over the current
> monolithic function.
I agree, but my application needs access to the process ID. So if
I'll start implementing such class, it'll have a getPID()
method or similar :)

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Mikhail Glushenkov<foldr at
codedgers.com> wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Daniel Dunbar <daniel <at> zuster.org> writes:
>
>>
>> Ultimately I think a better API would be to provide a generic class
>> which represents an executed operating system process, and includes
>> operations to wait for its completion, redirect its IO, communicate
>> with it, etc. This would be a big improvement over the current
>> monolithic function.
>
> I agree, but my application needs access to the process ID. So if
> I'll start implementing such class, it'll have a getPID()
> method or similar :)
Do you have to have it? You can't use the pid (assigned from as a
number) without going through another llvm::sys interface, so why
should it be exposed?

I don't personally care too much -- and favor pragmatism -- but it is
counter to the documented design of the system library:
http://llvm.org/docs/SystemLibrary.html

 - Daniel
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>

Daniel Dunbar <daniel <at> zuster.org> writes:
> 
> Do you have to have it? You can't use the pid (assigned from as a
> number) without going through another llvm::sys interface, so why
> should it be exposed?
I need to invoke an external program (gcore), which takes PID as
argument. On Windows I do something platform-specific, but that
also requires access to PID.

I'm currently rewriting this patch to also remove the duplication
between ExecuteAndWait and ExecuteNoWait.
> I don't personally care too much -- and favor pragmatism -- but it is
> counter to the documented design of the system library:
> http://llvm.org/docs/SystemLibrary.html
A one-line GetPid() method is not so dangerous IMO.