Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Date:	Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:52:30 +0200
From:	Corinna Vinschen <vinschen AT redhat DOT com>
To:	Cygwin Developers <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	Re: vfork / setsid interaction
Message-ID:	<20020813165230.H17250@cygbert.vinschen.de>
Reply-To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	Cygwin Developers <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<1029248291 DOT 12157 DOT 96 DOT camel AT lifelesswks> <3D591779 DOT 6030906 AT hekimian DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<3D591779.6030906@hekimian.com>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.22.1i

On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 10:28:09AM -0400, Joe Buehler wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
> 
> >IIRC According to SUSv2, calling *anything* after [v]fork() other than
> >exec() may lead to unexpected behaviour. 
> >
> >You might like to reference the SUSv2 and see what the expected
> >behaviour is.
> 
> Granted, but compatibility with historical UNIX behavior makes it
> easier to port things.

Not if compatibility is a big problem.  And the vfork() implementation
isn't thought to be coincidentally compatible with some random UNIX
but to be a fast implementation to allow the common cases covered
by the standards.  Otherwise we could stick with fork() and a vfork()
which just calls fork().

Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer                                mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.

- Raw text -