This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: A real fork() on NT
- From: "Greg Mosier" <Greg dot Mosier at USA dot Net>
- To: <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 21:27:21 -0800
- Subject: Re: A real fork() on NT
- References: <006e01c1a96a$f60429a0$aace0544@CX535256D> <E16VsW4-0001P8firstname.lastname@example.org> <20020130131416.D11608@cygbert.vinschen.de> <013a01c1ab96$839eefc0$0100a8c0@advent02>
From: "Chris January" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: A real fork() on NT
> > That isn't really new. I'd like to point you to the example 6.1,
> > "Forking a Win32 Process" on p. 161ff of Gary Nebbett's excellent
> > book "Windows NT/2000 Native API Reference", published by MTP,
> > ISBN 1-57870-199-6, which also describes the problem with kernel32.dll
> > initialization of the child process.
> Are you referring to the CsrpConnectToServer function? I have a working
> implementation which replaces this with CsrClientConnectToServer which is
> exported from the DLL. Are their any other pitfalls I should be aware of?
Pardon the intrusion here, but this sounds like it could be connected with a
problem that I'm working on. I've got an issue with an application that I'm
trying to get to fork into bg. Of course, this application, eggdrop, isn't
written to fork with cygwin and therefore I'm trying to patch it so that it
will. The interesting thing about this is that I can start eggdrop with an
& but it still doesn't return the controlling terminal. What difference it
does make, though, is that starting it with & allows me to Crtl-Break it
once it's running and it returns the controlling terminal while the program
continues in bg. I would guess that this is an issue related with forking
issues under cygwin as I searched the archives and it seems to be an ongoing
issue. From what I can tell, though, it seems like quite a few people have
gotten this to work? I ask you people of the list, should I even bother
beating my head against the wall here or just forget about it?
P.S. I would have dropped this awhile back with the exception of the cron
application. It appears to fork quite nicely under Win98, my OS. Now maybe
I'm wrong here, but seems to me if one app can fork that surely another
should be able to, no?
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html