From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 76459 invoked by alias); 27 Jul 2019 10:02:50 -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 76452 invoked by uid 89); 27 Jul 2019 10:02:50 -0000 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 Received: from mail-lf1-f44.google.com (HELO mail-lf1-f44.google.com) (209.85.167.44) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 10:02:48 +0000 Received: by mail-lf1-f44.google.com with SMTP id c9so38721380lfh.4 for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2019 03:02:47 -0700 (PDT) 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==?= Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2019 10:02:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: vfork() question To: cygwin@cygwin.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-SW-Source: 2019-07/txt/msg00233.txt.bz2 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