Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	"Stephano Mariani" <sk DOT mail AT btinternet DOT com>
To:	"'Gary R. Van Sickle'" <g DOT r DOT vansickle AT worldnet DOT att DOT net>,
	<cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	RE: OT: possible project/research project
Date:	Wed, 20 Mar 2002 09:37:42 -0000
Message-ID:	<013a01c1cff2$e515c910$0200a8c0@sknet01>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616
In-Reply-To:	<NCBBIHCHBLCMLBLOBONKMEOGCLAA.g.r.vansickle@worldnet.att.net>
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Importance:	Normal

I would certainly agree with you about that, but the fact remains, a lot
of code, that cygwin exists to ease the porting of, uses it. If the work
was done on fork itself, it would help speed-up a lot more that just
configure (or similar) scripts.

Stephano Mariani

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com [mailto:cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com] On
Behalf
> Of Gary R. Van Sickle
> Sent: Wednesday, 20 March 2002 2:52 AM
> To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
> Subject: RE: OT: possible project/research project
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com [mailto:cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com]On
Behalf
> > Of Stephano Mariani
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 7:34 PM
> > To: 'Randall R Schulz'; 'Robert Collins'; cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
> > Subject: RE: OT: possible project/research project
> >
> >
> > I am no cygwin expert, or windows expert, but isn't the effort
better
> > spent getting the cygwin fork/vfork to work faster?
> >
> > Stephano Mariani
> >
> > PS: Please do not fry me if this is a stupid suggestion or not
possible
> > because of an obvious flaw, I simply fail to see why the source of
the
> > problem is not being targeted.
> >
> 
> I don't see it that the source of the problem is the implementation of
> fork/vfork; the way I see it the very *concept* of forking makes
little to
> no
> sense.  I've written a lot of code, and not once have I thought to
myself,
> "ok,
> now what I want to do here is duplicate the current process in almost
> exactly
> its current state."  Maybe it made more sense back in the day, or
maybe
> I'm
> missing something, but it seems to me there's a lot more efficient
ways to
> do
> multithreading/multi"process"ing/IPC/etc (or better yet avoid them
> altogether)
> these days.
> 
> --
> Gary R. Van Sickle
> Brewer.  Patriot.
> 
> 
> --
> Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
> Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/




--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -