X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:reply-to:message-id:to:subject
	:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=fHFqNJPGNJDUs9Ok
	mc8jKJRSK9Ik04CWGvvs4yF7HcSSBKOKHKztJ2uITH/WbIYrDn6FxxyH6AtI8Kty
	33ZqaDtcWlJZcuk2l+2fV/Uo0svGS7M1+SkUaFOPyx6bz/LX+qv+OkhP+LawxSeO
	zqjENB6b3y6HjWSyI0ZAlRofNTY=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:reply-to:message-id:to:subject
	:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=I63mVtOXvQ8hgWsO86YW2i
	d7low=; b=IGq4UnOwFztLJ01ShvPK9ND5cVnBusgbz6hhX5XjKj4rUvEYhjcQu0
	zlWgRUuRA4LdxIlVdjLqtn1fLY5gV5xvbGvT/DMbSJsxrjrBCMduAq00kP4tNg7n
	JFYpUyLi1BqTvJHlUB0mCeKS00ra3LNWaCtlwtL/hQXHBvVj5Sc9U=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=2.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_THEBAT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_JMF_BL,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.1 spammy=HX-Priority:Normal, szpkti, Szpkti, H*M:yandex
X-HELO:	forward106j.mail.yandex.net
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.ru; s=mail; t=1564224602; bh=Y+fxdhWmTKvg5rt/ONtic6X8MZgLo2yDOfk+YSAdKPY=; h=In-Reply-To:Subject:To:Reply-To:From:Message-ID:References:Date; b=v5rJJzfi72ztSQmdqDuU/OFO0cVcBzOIwh+RNC0bXgO3oq5exaqpyfrd3Oe7Mkjhx hT6f7CFnDU4An7q7CNxZIMu/3dhEO/HZzNp6mWuu69yEBRF08LFp5g/W4/Rfls+qFx r52uh9zEeUjUP1QviQpyzLNjYakNMcrJ4f+YCjW8=
Authentication-Results:	mxback23g.mail.yandex.net; dkim=pass header.i=@yandex.ru
Date:	Sat, 27 Jul 2019 13:35:50 +0300
From:	Andrey Repin <anrdaemon AT yandex DOT ru>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<1046206604.20190727133550@yandex.ru>
To:	=?utf-8?Q?Bence_Sz=C3=A9pk=C3=BAti?= <szepkuti DOT bence AT gmail DOT com>,
	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: vfork() question
In-Reply-To:	<CAMkWRsnq5etg984NswsqVXi5T3earBPtgU-gO4zKwknn_HfrTQ@mail.gmail.com>
References:	<CAMkWRsnq5etg984NswsqVXi5T3earBPtgU-gO4zKwknn_HfrTQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from base64 to 8bit by delorie.com id x6RAof4F001810

Greetings, Bence Szépkúti!

> Hello,

> I was poking around in the fork() code in Cygwin, and was wondering if
> someone could explain to me / point me to a discussion of why the NEWVFORK
> code was abandoned.

> I realise that this code had been disabled as "not working" since 2008,
> however I am interested in why this was the case. Was the concept behind
> "short-circuiting" vfork itself unfeasible in the context of Cygwin? Was a
> compatible implementation too complex / too slow to be worth it compared to
> a regular fork?

> Any insight is appreciated.

I could be wrong, but it may be due to a more reliable ways to implement
forking that became available in Win7+.


-- 
With best regards,
Andrey Repin
Saturday, July 27, 2019 13:34:49

Sorry for my terrible english...
--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -