X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:26:40 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: optimizing fork/exec in vendor source Message-ID: <20081010142640.GB15821@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <2cf50a010810092225q1d7190e6k8f8a4f152fce4de4@mail.gmail.com> <48EF48B2.8070603@byu.net> <2cf50a010810100626j74c804a4m6ce87dfc0f284505@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2cf50a010810100626j74c804a4m6ce87dfc0f284505@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) 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 On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:26:32AM +1100, Jack Andrews wrote: >eric wrote: >>No, changing bash to use CreateProcess is not the answer. The real >>question is whether someone with copyright assignment is willing to >>write posix_spawn[p], and write it more efficiently than forking, > >this seems to be an easy problem in cygwin (at least, in comparison to >fork). and would fix one of the biggest problems with cygwin (or at >least cygwin bash). who has to hold the copyright? It is not an "easy problem" and there are no guarantees that it would fix anything. cgf -- 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/