Question of the necessity of rebaseall
Thu May 14 23:23:00 GMT 2009
Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please <at> cygwin.com> 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.
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
More information about the Cygwin