From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13187 invoked by alias); 13 Sep 2004 08:06:25 -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 13177 invoked by uid 48); 13 Sep 2004 08:06:24 -0000 Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 08:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040913080624.13176.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "dennis at mds dot rmit dot edu dot au" 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/msg00077.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From dennis at mds dot rmit dot edu dot au 2004-09-13 08:06 ------- > this behavior, but it would be a disservice to users to have it change now. Absolutely. The current generic fork/exec posix_spawn should remain as is. However, any new NPTL variant introduced (e.g POSIX_SPAWN_USEVFORK/ POSIX_SPAWN_NO_ATFORK) can define how it deals with atfork handlers. -- 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.