X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 06:55:35 +0100
Message-ID: <416096c60906302255t1b5bdb41u442ebca20679c8d9@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: fork and exec (was: Re: Proposed patch to system.XWinrc)
From: Andy Koppe <andy DOT koppe AT gmail DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.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

2009/6/23 Christopher Faylor:
>>If posix_spawn() ever gets implemented in Cygwin to
>>avoid the slowness of fork(), /bin/sh might well change to the first
>>shell that supports it.
>
> It's really somewhat of an urban myth about Cygwin's fork being slow.
> Cygwin's exec is also pretty slow. =C2=A0I'm not really sure that posix_s=
pawn
> would cause any kind of performance improvement.

Ah, right. So is it Windows' CreateProcess() itself that's slow? Or is
it some of the additional stuff that exec() needs to deal with?
Signals? The hidden console?

Andy

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