X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to
	:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=ybtPA7XWwh8hk6Hit1N7TL4kdodzI
	LwbEsY/EUbp2lDAAXVLnq6Rw/AN6621Gwo+qXFZqyxoIOBYGTcXV50XeNT5Ac6mq
	GcM2pkFxoyaC07fpATFBXqV14AUelOA9yZQ5LnhQ0FIZKAUOnBWosajrpyJ8fTgc
	JdSedCGANLEDuY=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to
	:content-type; s=default; bh=OiJL7PoYU2obv6Q1b3TAK6r8CYE=; b=h50
	oq6qXKdAVEpqVJJalF8XPOWKxLqO4qecE2iGTqHbpT2Qe1Xro3DmAWPRkSkJiWNO
	BL+J9Rth4t/T+cFoAQNVt6z3oBslhOzCmTz6hXHNMkWNh0Am+2hKS4nyVtFkyhnK
	IxRsDpH2iHPNuWyYQaWqCJWDmDXY3HI3Bsztw1ek=
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
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,FROM_EXCESS_BASE64,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=2008, Was, H*c:alternative
X-HELO: mail-lf1-f44.google.com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;        d=gmail.com; s=20161025;        h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;        bh=CaTVkV1GZH6EbHRTtvqnmU7CgIscRkWb8HsQQyIs97g=;        b=o7YjfW53S+67nbcuDi0OCszrqJQkl2ErpXGwawn9nnX7MOYTOkziZD/PLImgCtTh4g         8ZMNjcTLi4mlaJvWS3cj/r0PfSaRW4wSalbcDTVzvLzdwHxwk3tx7CfPfemwWAOzUzeA         YCARJZ4wNh9fdYo4afiTMwIu2lf36Q0ydohOViO53/+v0uMLXM3r7kLelWIcujQZm0bT         v8d7P6KTMqN1xmE+vE4u+dKITveX04//HHBPww0hZ1X2tTYtKZ2tGgsLSZPui0qvIr6v         ckK/xVikT7vt4YclVjwKKVuKqGNn+I83k2AmCn1PAgO3v38aucnQW6Tdcyx9KjNu/gIt         zemw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: =?UTF-8?B?QmVuY2UgU3rDqXBrw7p0aQ==?= <szepkuti DOT bence AT gmail DOT com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 12:02:37 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMkWRsnq5etg984NswsqVXi5T3earBPtgU-gO4zKwknn_HfrTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: vfork() question
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hello,

I was poking around in the fork() code in Cygwin, and was wondering if
someone could explain to me / point me to a discussion of why the NEWVFORK
code was abandoned.

I realise that this code had been disabled as "not working" since 2008,
however I am interested in why this was the case. Was the concept behind
"short-circuiting" vfork itself unfeasible in the context of Cygwin? Was a
compatible implementation too complex / too slow to be worth it compared to
a regular fork?

Any insight is appreciated.

Thanks,
Bence

--
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