On 14/09/2012 09:49, Erik Cederstrand wrote: > Hello hackers, > > I'm looking through the Clang Analyzer scans on > http://scan.freebsd.your.org/freebsd-head looking for false positives to > report back to LLVM. There are quite a list of reports suggesting to change > vfork() calls to posix_spawn(). Example from /bin/rpc: > http://scan.freebsd.your.org/freebsd-head/bin.rcp/2012-09-12-amd64/report-nsOV80.html#EndPath > > I know nothing about this but I can see fork and posix_spawn have been > discussed on this list previously. Is this a legitimate warning (in this case > and in general in FreeBSD base)?
Currently (on 9-stable at least), posix_spawn() is implemented as a wrapper around vfork(), so I doubt replacing one with the other would do much.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
