Re: [Boost-testing] Re: build_monitor - making it work better

From: Rene Rivera (grafik.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-16 22:56:39

Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
> Carl Daniel writes:
>>I assume that right now the process hierarchy looks like this:
>>
>>python.exe
>>    bjam.exe
>>        cl.exe
>>        link.exe
>>        foo_test.exe
>>        bar_test.exe
>>        ...
>>
>>and that there are no cases in which a test process creates child
>>processes.  Is that correct?

Definitely not correct.

> AFAIK, _tests themselves_ do not launch any child processes, but
> compilers can and do.

But if there ever is a test for process control it would have to spawn 
child processes.

> IOW, the hierarchy looks more like
> 
>   python.exe
>       bjam.exe
>           cl.exe
>           como.exe
>              somethingrather.exe
>              linksomethingrather.exe
>           g++.exe
>              somethingrather2.exe
>           link.exe
>           foo_test.exe
>           bar_test.exe
>           ...

At a minimum CodeWarrior and GCC spawn children. And bjam itself runs 
it's actions in a child shell, for which the shell would spawn children. 
As a concrete example for CW it would go something like:

python.exe
   bjam.exe
     cmd.exe
       mwcc.exe (cw compile)
     cmd.exe
       mwcc.exe (cw link)
         mwld.exe
     cmd.exe
       foo_test.exe
     cmd.exe
       bar_test.exe

-- 
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com
-- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq