From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13606 invoked by alias); 13 Sep 2004 03:10:41 -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 13593 invoked by uid 48); 13 Sep 2004 03:10:40 -0000 Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 03:10:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040913031040.13592.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "roland at gnu dot org" 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/msg00072.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From roland at gnu dot org 2004-09-13 03:10 ------- What you are saying is that behavior of the posix_spawn interface is not intended to be well-specified. I think that is a lousy choice. If there are other differences than atfork handlers, they should be clearly specified and explicit in the description of the flag. I don't care what linuxthreads does, it might as well just not suppose the flag at all. -- 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.