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
Date:	Sun, 22 Sep 2002 22:15:12 -0400
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf-vfork-works AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Surprises running gcc 3.2 configure on cygwin
Message-ID:	<20020923021512.GA26806@redhat.com>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<3D8E5E4C DOT 7070905 AT cox DOT net> <20020923020823 DOT 500B82CC43 AT inet1 DOT ywave DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<20020923020823.500B82CC43@inet1.ywave.com>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.4i

On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 07:08:21PM -0700, Tim Prince wrote:
>> SEEMS STRANGE to have one and not the other.  DOES IT MATTER?
>Since vfork is not a standard C function, no one says there need be such a 
>header.  There are bigger isssues with vfork on Windows, see the list archive.

I'm not aware of any issues with vfork on Windows.  vfork should be much faster
than fork.

cgf

--
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 -