From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22121 invoked by alias); 13 Sep 2004 06:35:12 -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 22107 invoked by uid 48); 13 Sep 2004 06:35:11 -0000 Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 06:35:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040913063511.22106.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "jakub 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/msg00074.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From jakub at redhat dot com 2004-09-13 06:35 ------- But similarly any developer that relies on the atfork handlers not being called is creating a non-portable program. http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/posix_spawn.html ^[THR] [Option Start] It is implementation-defined whether the fork handlers are run when posix_spawn() or posix_spawnp() is called. [Option End] -- 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.