From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13948 invoked by alias); 13 Sep 2004 01:22:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact glibc-bugs-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: glibc-bugs-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 13934 invoked by uid 48); 13 Sep 2004 01:22:06 -0000 Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 01:22:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040913012206.13932.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "drepper at redhat dot com" To: glibc-bugs@sources.redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20040910004801.378.dennis@mds.rmit.edu.au> References: <20040910004801.378.dennis@mds.rmit.edu.au> Reply-To: sourceware-bugzilla@sources.redhat.com Subject: [Bug nptl/378] posix_spawn implementation, use vfork/execve rather than fork/execve for NPTL Linux. X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00071.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From drepper at redhat dot com 2004-09-13 01:22 ------- > If ought to be POSIX_SPAWN_NO_ATFORK, This is problematic. The atfork handlers might not be the only reason why vfork cannot be used. It is for the nptl implementation, it isn't for the LT code. As is, vfork usage can be forced by the programmer if s/he knows it is OK. If we'd use POSIX_SPAWN_NO_ATFORK we would also need to add more flags for other details which are problematic and the programmer would have to select them all to get vfork used. This is too much specialized knowledge required. I prefer the "use vfork and do whatever necessary" flag. -- http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=378 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.