DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to
	:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=ybtPA7XWwh8hk6Hit1N7TL4kdodzI
	LwbEsY/EUbp2lDAAXVLnq6Rw/AN6621Gwo+qXFZqyxoIOBYGTcXV50XeNT5Ac6mq
	GcM2pkFxoyaC07fpATFBXqV14AUelOA9yZQ5LnhQ0FIZKAUOnBWosajrpyJ8fTgc
	JdSedCGANLEDuY=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: =?UTF-8?B?QmVuY2UgU3rDqXBrw7p0aQ==?= <szepkuti.bence@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 12:02:37 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMkWRsnq5etg984NswsqVXi5T3earBPtgU-gO4zKwknn_HfrTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: vfork() question
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hello,

I was poking around in the fork() code in Cygwin, and was wondering if
someone could explain to me / point me to a discussion of why the NEWVFORK
code was abandoned.

I realise that this code had been disabled as "not working" since 2008,
however I am interested in why this was the case. Was the concept behind
"short-circuiting" vfork itself unfeasible in the context of Cygwin? Was a
compatible implementation too complex / too slow to be worth it compared to
a regular fork?

Any insight is appreciated.

Thanks,
Bence

--
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