X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4F039EC0.6050703@dancol.org> Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 16:35:12 -0800 From: Daniel Colascione User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Efficient posix_spawn implementation for Cygwin References: <2b113761fca8acd2a86179e108c83c6a.squirrel@dancol.org> <4F038492.60106@cs.utoronto.ca> <20120104002014.GA31299@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> In-Reply-To: <20120104002014.GA31299@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 1/3/2012 4:20 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> but it sounds interesting (especially if it allows less-frequent >> invocation of the rebaseall ritual). > > Since the VAST majority of UNIX/linux programs use fork/exec I don't > see how this would really have much of an effect. The idea is to add upstream support for posix_spawn when it would be useful. Because posix_spawn is a standardized facility, because other systems usefully implement it too, and because posix_spawn can be implemented in terms of fork for systems that lack posix_spawn (with gnulib providing such an implementation), adding this support might be easier than adding explicit support for Cygwin's spawn. -- 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