X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org From: "Dave Korn" To: References: <2cf50a010810092225q1d7190e6k8f8a4f152fce4de4 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <48EF48B2 DOT 8070603 AT byu DOT net> <2cf50a010810100626j74c804a4m6ce87dfc0f284505 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> Subject: RE: optimizing fork/exec in vendor source Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:08:55 +0100 Message-ID: <05c301c92ae1$bb26f330$9601a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <2cf50a010810100626j74c804a4m6ce87dfc0f284505@mail.gmail.com> 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 Jack Andrews wrote on 10 October 2008 14:27: > 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. Copyright has to be assigned to Red Hat, who stand in the same relation to cygwin in this matter as the FSF does to Gcc, etc. See "Before you get started" at http://cygwin.com/contrib.html cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... -- 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/