X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 19:37:32 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Question of the necessity of rebaseall
Message-ID: <20090514233732.GA28103@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <gufoof$4ov$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org> <4A0B6BE4 DOT 1020905 AT cygwin DOT com> <gufqp0$8jv$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org> <4A0B751A DOT 30007 AT cygwin DOT com> <guftc9$de2$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org> <4A0B7CB2 DOT 5050203 AT byu DOT net> <17393e3e0905141420w19b8ef8fr4f58a0f5c7f49ee7 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20090514230106 DOT GA27859 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <loom DOT 20090514T231729-635 AT post DOT gmane DOT org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <loom.20090514T231729-635@post.gmane.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:23:08PM +0000, Eric Blake wrote:
>Christopher Faylor writes:
>We can't say it enough:
>
>>>>Read the source.
>>>Is this a place where using vfork() instead of fork() helps (where it's
>>>applicable, of course)?  If so, we might be able to reduce the number
>>>of rebase failures in the future just by trying to push other projects
>>>to use vfork wherever it's substitutable for fork...
>>
>>In Cygwin vfork == fork.
>
>But, if you really wanted to be nice, instead of forcing us to respond
>to your uneducated guesses, you could implement posix_spawn, and push
>for more upstream projects (particularly bash) to use it.  That is at
>least one case where people have already implemented posix_spawn on top
>of fork (and in fact, gnulib has already done so, and m4 uses the
>gnulib implementation), but where you can also implement it more
>efficiently on top of native windows semantics if you do it right.  And
>maybe, in the process of seeing how many loose ends there are to get it
>to have posix_spawn work correctly, you will start to understand why we
>haven't already implemented it, and why cygwin does fork/vfork the way
>it does.

Yes.  What he said.

I meant to reiterate the "Read the source" advice.  It really isn't very
polite to keep asking us to explain things to you when 1) any reasonable
person would conclude that most of these issues had already been
discussed to death and 2) there is source code available.

--
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/