This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Question of the necessity of rebaseall

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:23:08PM +0000, Eric Blake wrote:
>Christopher Faylor writes:
>We can't say it enough:
>>>>Read the source.
>>>Is this a place where using vfork() instead of fork() helps (where it's
>>>applicable, of course)?  If so, we might be able to reduce the number
>>>of rebase failures in the future just by trying to push other projects
>>>to use vfork wherever it's substitutable for fork...
>>In Cygwin vfork == fork.
>But, if you really wanted to be nice, instead of forcing us to respond
>to your uneducated guesses, you could implement posix_spawn, and push
>for more upstream projects (particularly bash) to use it.  That is at
>least one case where people have already implemented posix_spawn on top
>of fork (and in fact, gnulib has already done so, and m4 uses the
>gnulib implementation), but where you can also implement it more
>efficiently on top of native windows semantics if you do it right.  And
>maybe, in the process of seeing how many loose ends there are to get it
>to have posix_spawn work correctly, you will start to understand why we
>haven't already implemented it, and why cygwin does fork/vfork the way
>it does.

Yes.  What he said.

I meant to reiterate the "Read the source" advice.  It really isn't very
polite to keep asking us to explain things to you when 1) any reasonable
person would conclude that most of these issues had already been
discussed to death and 2) there is source code available.

Unsubscribe info:
Problem reports:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]