Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin-developers=delorie DOT com AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>,
	<http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
From:	Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
Date:	Tue, 27 Jul 1999 21:58:45 -0400
To:	Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd AT yahoo DOT com>
Cc:	cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject:	Re: vfork implementation
Message-ID:	<19990727215845.C20312@cygnus.com>
References:	<19990728013158 DOT 24033 DOT rocketmail AT web126 DOT yahoomail DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Mutt 0.95.6i
In-Reply-To:	<19990728013158.24033.rocketmail@web126.yahoomail.com>; from Earnie Boyd on Tue, Jul 27, 1999 at 06:31:58PM -0700

On Tue, Jul 27, 1999 at 06:31:58PM -0700, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>--- Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com> wrote:
>> In benchmarks, this vfork is *at least* twice as fast as a normal fork.
>
>This is worth including it in the next release.
>
>> So what do you think?  Is this good enough to go into the mythical next
>> net release (B21)?  Should I make it a cygwin option, i.e.
>> CYGWIN=fastvfork?
>
>Not worth doing, the code I've seen that contains vfork always checks to see if
>it's available.  If you don't want it just undefine the HAVE_VFORK or what ever
>macro.

The problem is that cygwin has always implemented vfork but it has always just
been implemented as a call to fork.  I can't just not implement it and, on
reflection, I don't think that the current implementation is quite right.

I'll probably implement Sergey's suggestion and then it should be 100% like
BSD vfork.

cgf

- Raw text -