Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2023 11:18:27 +0200
To: Bruno Haible <bruno@clisp.org>
Subject: Re: posix_spawn facility
Message-ID: <ZD0O442kk5d7VKrx@calimero.vinschen.de>
Mail-Followup-To: Bruno Haible <bruno@clisp.org>, cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <1752276.7aRn1RRit1@nimes>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1752276.7aRn1RRit1@nimes>
Precedence: list
From: Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Cc: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com>, cygwin@cygwin.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie.com@cygwin.com
Sender: "Cygwin" <cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie.com@cygwin.com>

Hi Bruno,

On Apr 16 13:46, Bruno Haible via Cygwin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> AFAIU, Cygwin has a working posix_spawn[p] implementation since 2020
> (commit 3fbfcd11fb09d5f47af3043ee47ec5c7d863d872, 2020-08-03, Cygwin 3.1.7).
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> [...]
> Would it be possible to change Cygwin's posix_spawnp implementation,
> so that both tests succeed?

Basically, yes, but...

> Disclaimer: I have done my tests with Cygwin 2.9.0; so, if things have
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^
					2017-09-07

I'm a bit puzzled. You quote that only Cygwin 3.1.7 has the fixed
posix_spawn, but then you test this with a version three years older?

Sorry, but... wouldn't it at least make sense to test this with a more
recent version of Cygwin first?


Thanks,
Corinna

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