From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 93655 invoked by alias); 16 Sep 2018 05:13:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 93625 invoked by uid 89); 16 Sep 2018 05:13:10 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=exclusively, H*M:35eb, HContent-Transfer-Encoding:8bit X-HELO: hawking.rebel.net.au Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] posix: Use posix_spawn on popen To: Adhemerval Zanella , libc-alpha@sourceware.org References: <20180915151622.17789-1-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> <20180915151622.17789-2-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> From: David Newall Message-ID: Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2018 05:13:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180915151622.17789-2-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2018-09/txt/msg00221.txt.bz2 It seems to me that there are still reasonable questions about whether to use posix_spawn or vfork ("posix_spawn is a badly designed API").  For (well over) 30 years, I've understood that vfork was the go-to call for a fork/exec scenario, so, what is the technical problem with using it for popen and system?  (I'm not asking about vfork's overall technical merits, I'm asking exclusively about using it for popen and system.)