X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org To: cygwin@cygwin.com From: Matthew Woehlke Subject: Re: Eliminating -mno-cygwin from gcc. Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 12:11:06 -0600 Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <020d01c748b4$62d8b170$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <45C69F2F.2060300@users.sourceforge.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.9) Gecko/20061206 Thunderbird/1.5.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.4.0 In-Reply-To: X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Igor Peshansky wrote: > On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Matthew Woehlke wrote: >> ...but doesn't the script itself involve a fork? On a big project, with >> an extra fork for every source file, that can still add up. > > Don't forget that invoking the gcc executable from make or the shell > involves a fork anyway. If gcc is 'exec'ed from the script, there will > only be the fork that invokes the shell, versus the fork that would have > invoked the executable. Hmm, ok, I was never convinced that bash's exec builtin didn't still involve fork()ing. Now I am (having taken a closer look at it). -- Matthew HIPPOS feel unacknowledged. HIPPOS get angry. > PRAISE HIPPOS HIPPOS seem somewhat placated. -- 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/