Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe@cygwin.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help@cygwin.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 22:15:12 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-vfork-works@cygwin.com>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: Surprises running gcc 3.2 configure on cygwin
Message-ID: <20020923021512.GA26806@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <3D8E5E4C.7070905@cox.net> <20020923020823.500B82CC43@inet1.ywave.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
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/