X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4485EB68.9F685880@dessent.net> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 13:54:00 -0700 From: Brian Dessent X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: cygwin fork problem maybe? References: <4485E5F3 DOT 7010700 AT tlinx DOT org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Linda W wrote: > Windows just doesn't support forking at all, as far as I know. > activeperl emulates forking using win32 threads. I don'tknow how cygwin > handles it, but my guess is that it's not very well :-( This smells like total FUD. This person that admittedly does not use Cygwin nor obviously know anything about Cygwin says that it's a fork problem and that's that? Fork may be a problem for Activestate but Cygwin fully emulates fork just fine, as does Cygwin's perl. The Cygwin DLL goes to extreme lengths to make sure this work. Just about every Cygwin compiled app that invokes a subprogram uses fork in some form, for example every shell command you type is a fork/exec. "my guess is that it's not very well" without any specific indication as to why or how fork is even related seems like nonsense to me. I certainly don't know why this module is failing, but just because Activestate's implementation of fork is terrible doesn't mean Cygwin's is too. Brian -- 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/