Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <04ce01c1a72e$2c597940$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject: fork() idea
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 23:28:48 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jan 2002 12:28:44.0433 (UTC) FILETIME=[292E7810:01C1A72E]

Just running this past for criticism.

What if on fork(), we loaded a _trivial_  stub program, what depends on
little-or-nothing, and thus takes up almost no memory, has little chance
of dll conflicts, address relocation etc. Then allocate memory to look
like the parent, load .dll's etc.

The point of this being that it allows a neat hack:
System shared memory can be made copy on writewith FILE_MAP_COPY. On
WinNT, if we load the application image into system mapped memory, we
can then duplicate much/most of the address space with _much_ lower
overhead.

Thoughts?

Rob