X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 06:55:35 +0100
Message-ID: <416096c60906302255t1b5bdb41u442ebca20679c8d9@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: fork and exec (was: Re: Proposed patch to system.XWinrc)
From: Andy Koppe <andy.koppe@gmail.com>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe@cygwin.com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help@cygwin.com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com

2009/6/23 Christopher Faylor:
>>If posix_spawn() ever gets implemented in Cygwin to
>>avoid the slowness of fork(), /bin/sh might well change to the first
>>shell that supports it.
>
> It's really somewhat of an urban myth about Cygwin's fork being slow.
> Cygwin's exec is also pretty slow. =C2=A0I'm not really sure that posix_s=
pawn
> would cause any kind of performance improvement.

Ah, right. So is it Windows' CreateProcess() itself that's slow? Or is
it some of the additional stuff that exec() needs to deal with?
Signals? The hidden console?

Andy

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple