From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 40271 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2019 07:57:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 40262 invoked by uid 89); 29 Jul 2019 07:57:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-106.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,GOOD_FROM_CORINNA_CYGWIN,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=behind, explain, HX-Languages-Length:882 X-HELO: mout.kundenserver.de Received: from mout.kundenserver.de (HELO mout.kundenserver.de) (217.72.192.75) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 07:57:02 +0000 Received: from calimero.vinschen.de ([24.134.7.25]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue109 [212.227.15.183]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MSKq6-1hyeLy2PCi-00SbOq for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 09:56:58 +0200 Received: by calimero.vinschen.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id 8B289A8065A; Mon, 29 Jul 2019 09:56:56 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 07:57:00 -0000 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: vfork() question Message-ID: <20190729075656.GJ11632@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CNfT9TXqV7nd4cfk" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01) X-SW-Source: 2019-07/txt/msg00247.txt.bz2 --CNfT9TXqV7nd4cfk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 882 On Jul 27 12:02, Bence Sz=C3=A9pk=C3=BAti wrote: > Hello, >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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? This was long ago and the original developer hacking this code isn't with us anymore. The only vague recollection I have is that it never really worked right, but no details. Maybe searching the mailing list archives helps unearthing some of the problems. Sorry, Corinna --=20 Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Maintainer --CNfT9TXqV7nd4cfk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-length: 833 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEoVYPmneWZnwT6kwF9TYGna5ET6AFAl0+psgACgkQ9TYGna5E T6C+RA/+OELGgu79zwTt/oC5ziluMJ4oNNDaLqIAxBzZkxf+EBLjR5Bx2re5xh7o wzIrTDDJNotZYxg33DhlT6K3OaKwNuWFSRXt/E+HHpCDt3jMfJX2Pmt1tm789+fg xwHE78Zgya547Zb8K3U5h9041xAsazAsnkLIRsqIZJYI6eEvNxlMHSstTSLXXBfW iQ5wl+6Q0kaODa+7HSwHQVb8sOzHIM3fH99okbfgMd6yT53WTDLzqYzRy9mjZhjz bFPkLHzCTlrJvuFa8OM8mQi2Uk9niKWoS6HwaVipyAZZhRzkT+laFPKtr/PZkOr9 wdy/rKFHxUbrXTFJKzMI0pd6P5UUfPiLcIyVVR3vpDQoVmZCLVTZyHOQrzH7BErv DCPKwlZfBOsp+hR2FFSZHtuyjXQu/oSDWm7lPpHdTb9bi1dT8KoVhY/CZGTA0d9a 4EMgKCm4/c9XLxwWohyy5hlmXcXBCVUOCYAXx9/YYe8/EtQogFt40kguJJ/7w1Um UWwfKfPOLCfnz1CG9AklrDmGe/tKSqmfTfPUVWQmFJB4mux1b8F/AGnz8zdrc3Gl DA7feYmD4TB8Ij4jJNUDL8/M3PGwpmf4Dni1p61hKpzF6XVCX6zbyBmDchDHHlTd gb4GZKnfi4Ll4450GTNKCh0vUT1NCQeST5xj7I5Rl3hRYgDKBnE= =aq50 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --CNfT9TXqV7nd4cfk--