From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.kundenserver.de (mout.kundenserver.de [217.72.192.74]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93C8F3861830 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 12:50:15 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 93C8F3861830 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=cygwin.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com Received: from calimero.vinschen.de ([217.91.18.234]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue108 [212.227.15.183]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1Mg6i8-1kZpAw0XwE-00hi68; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 14:50:12 +0200 Received: by calimero.vinschen.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id 351FDA80D14; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 14:50:11 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 14:50:11 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: Peter Dons Tychsen Cc: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Synchronization problem with posix_spawn Message-ID: <20200820125011.GR3272@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: Peter Dons Tychsen , cygwin@cygwin.com References: <864b3031-9fc8-beb3-ba7c-1ade4c31a288@cornell.edu> <20200730115913.GL4206@calimero.vinschen.de> <20200730171723.GA460314@calimero.vinschen.de> <86051625-646d-065a-8543-1c3086411d3d@cornell.edu> <20200731081025.GB460314@calimero.vinschen.de> <9c44f4351d459a2ba8d27c65bf71679208cb13d6.camel@tdcadsl.dk> <20200803105004.GK460314@calimero.vinschen.de> <1ae8de15bb74efb7207299d2dba92cdef88d9a94.camel@tdcadsl.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1ae8de15bb74efb7207299d2dba92cdef88d9a94.camel@tdcadsl.dk> X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:WHoESDSlsuLe2DAfwBo/MQ1mUQKnO8RdHK45oXWT22DzHw5myP4 W05kd4k5j9dy2os50EVLd0SL4/0mVscBe8CjqAUHnUeE3Il+eQ7pnu/NllxX9seyU59Jr5g /LoSHX3M9eAq56nALe5c2fKzOVdt7uh41moewwyVkPvEaOvJBfUlgZl9rnFXxbv3XOM42n9 tdbKRz6saV8tcvQ/Zu3mQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:XHdRdMEHyYg=:XtfMo/WDC1auZHIl9640Vc ZAtMOfBS5yeOEDVdCkJ0gtRC4BOZ5QSDzBns2XZGLEh8S2PO0yIYrvDlaw0uccOe4z1WICfhN Q1eD0Ej9SkOauP+Mt2M6v0x/ZY3EEg39lpDVNk4kz6+EAtarywglj3Sr3btS2MjmllpQt4s7+ aqxQqCubnOeTev9YXdAvmvKQbD3f2OK1PU/0TGQQ/VZKr4inLxpwODojzuzc9JPwTCO0o+jDl pyAeZSXeiPBATNnwa/GPA6ZiGCrB+MBmDk83qWF6/Zu3VYU/sqBGrm6THWYDFhzPs531UG6Ve /r2InNDJw3swW5IjOKxlbzXypbMk2feuIHeKslBtx0xmkhbrkIn3PES3stv9xSKdJ/Rlhhf8A zQQ/LX2qdGC2bdUzheWEcxp4/w/BJe1M7RHNGu77jjXLObiR3leGGFkInbiHjLB2vg9ndI4pl eZJNbeceEJsg9Huy8IP1qIKr4hSqQmrNSJECdtkinz8dXSRLHiPWRtCs5+QjfhJhalPXAQKel AVLIKXJsWezQOeE5jhtTVyctb29UAf7WF17W4OIBSYalMdAnau8WgwgZYKKeps/ghuGYFk3hm e29zv7qMnJ9KKhroW784VH+P5gcx1V/8d5LSPCXbNZu+P5P6zI5x7nYpz7EvCmHIShNtrXtih pONAClATW3ZtNaJ+E+LuX6Z7UjesxYPLNXoiNxkRfdpK+QarkEDqiU7732JMTpd/L3yhkK+3J xTh6l5ZHScNyw14DOiTRxQQ1VDlbcE91tm45yxp/p0rnB1mNGmK1KkpERoojtRgxAF0jIFNwA kWq7kvN4l+IHqNxpg5FXOY+mmUllZV0kYeUanjy2UGWwWEFstLMRfNhioZsoCL1DjCIxTDnb3 hrj9GvmfX56SnWJp6DdA== X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, GOOD_FROM_CORINNA_CYGWIN, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NEUTRAL, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: cygwin@cygwin.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: General Cygwin discussions and problem reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 12:50:17 -0000 On Aug 20 07:40, Peter Dons Tychsen via Cygwin wrote: > Hi Corinna, > > > spawn alone doesn't cut it, due to the requirement to support the > > additional file actions and spawn atributes POSIX defines. This > > would require a revamp of Cygwin's spawn functionality, which is > > already quite complicated. So this is something I'm only willing > > to do in homeopathic doses. > > OK. I can see that most of the processing of the options are done > seperately. We could to start with create a shortcut that calls > spawn[vpe]() instead if there are no options specified? That would > speed up most cases. Then we could add the extra cases later if needed. > > Would that be an acceptable patch? No, it won't work as expected, as you can see from the discussion in this thread. Some internal work would be required. > The reason i am pushing for this is that allot of developers i interact > with get the feeling cygwin is slow. Well, Cygwin *is* slow, given the fork/exec implementation. We asked Microsoft a lot if there's any chance to create a fork-alike working in the Windows subsystem, but that ship has sailed. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Maintainer