On Jul 7 12:45, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Jul 4 15:59, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Jul 2025, Jeremy Drake via Cygwin-patches wrote: > > > On Fri, 4 Jul 2025, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > > I see what you mean. The question of questions is if "as if" only > > > > covers the "performed exactly once" requirement, or if the "as if" > > > > really encompasses all three requirements, i.e. > > > > > > > > - as if the specified sequence of actions was performed exactly once > > > > > > > > - exactly in the context of the spawned process (prior to execution of > > > > the new > > > > process image) > > > > > > > > - exactly in the order in which the actions were added to the object > > > > > > > > in contrast to > > > > > > > > - as if the specified sequence of actions was performed exactly once > > > > > > > > - as if in the context of the spawned process (prior to execution of > > > > the new > > > > process image) > > > > > > > > - as if in the order in which the actions were added to the object > > > > > > > > My understanding (as a non-native speaker) is that "as if" only > > > > covers the "performed exactly once" requirement. Applying "as if" > > > > to the order requirement doesn't make much sense to me. And applying > > > > "as if" > > > > implicitely to the second requirement, but not to the third, doesn't > > > > make much sense to me either. > > > > > > The "as if" performed exactly once doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me > > > either... To me, the only case where "as if" adds flexibility is the > > > context of the child process. > > > > > > > On top of that you'd have the problem that the man pages of > > > > osix_spawn_file_actions_addclose and posix_spawn_file_actions_addchdir > > > > contradict each other. This, of course, is always possible. Only an > > > > RFC to the Austin Group could clarify this. Maybe we should really do > > > > that. > > https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1935
Good news: https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1935#c7229 I'm glad I asked. tl;dr: The Austin Group just changed all the descriptions in terms of posix_spawn_actions, so that they are to be performed *as if* they are running in the child preior to calling execve(). This means, we're free to run alkl desired actions in the parent, as far as that makes sense. I still think it might make sense to run some of the actions in the context of the child's child_info_spawn::handle_spawn() processing, but we can restart discussing this as we go along. Corinna
