X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <2cf50a010810100626j74c804a4m6ce87dfc0f284505@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:26:32 +1100 From: "Jack Andrews" To: "Eric Blake" Subject: Re: optimizing fork/exec in vendor source Cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com In-Reply-To: <48EF48B2.8070603@byu.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <2cf50a010810092225q1d7190e6k8f8a4f152fce4de4 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <48EF48B2 DOT 8070603 AT byu DOT net> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: 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 eric wrote: > No, changing bash to use CreateProcess is not the answer. The real > question is whether someone with copyright assignment is willing to write > posix_spawn[p], and write it more efficiently than forking, this seems to be an easy problem in cygwin (at least, in comparison to fork). and would fix one of the biggest problems with cygwin (or at least cygwin bash). who has to hold the copyright? ta, jack. -- 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/