| delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 10:17:59PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: > >>Fully implementing posix_spawn is quite a bit of work although I did >>tell Linus Torvalds that I'd look into implementing it in Cygwin >>eventually (it would make git-on-cygwin faster). >> >>I have a patch in my sandbox which implements a more lightweight >>approach for popen using cygwin internals. > >Don't you go thru this exercise about every two years? > >1) fork/exec implementation in cygwin sux >2) attempt to rewrite cygwin internals to use symantics of >spawn|vfork|some-other-clever-idea >3) it breaks a bunch of stuff >4) try to patch around the problems, repeat #3 >4) revert back to original fork/exec implementation > >What's different this time? (Really, I'm not being snarky, and maybe >I'm misremembering, but I'd hate to see precious developer time spent in >#2 thru #4 if #5 will happen anyway -- if the past is any guide.) I did try one time previously to implement vfork/exec transparently as just a call to spawn* but my implementation caused more problems than it solved. That is not the same thing as implementing popen via spawn which is a more tractable issue. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |