if you look close at the iffe test it says something like "posix spawn works and is worth using" part of the test checks to see if the native posix_spawn() implementation uses fork() (there are some implementations that do) needless to say, those implementations are deemed "not worth using" when vfork() is available and works like vfork() should
I don't know if this is the case for the system you built ksh on -- Glenn Fowler -- AT&T Research, Florham Park NJ -- On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 04:58:32 +0100 Roland Mainz wrote: > Alan Coopersmith wrote: > > Roland Mainz wrote: > > > ... which raises the question whether ksh93 should (or could) use > > > |posix_spawn()| instead of |vfork()| > > > > I had the same thought a couple of weeks ago, but then I plugged > > "posix_spawn ksh93" into a google search and one of the top hits > > was: > > > > package changes from 2002-12-21 to 2003-04-22 > > ... ksh93 was modified to accept :% as equivalent to % and :# as equivalent > > to > > ... comp/spawnveg.c: call posix_spawn() if implemented comp/omitted.c: add > > ... > > www.research.att.com/~gsf/download/release.2003-04-22.2002-12-21.html > Ouch... sometimes it helps to read the changelogs... ;-/ > ... however I checked it via "dbx" and it seems that at leaszt > ast.ksh-2006-09-12 uses |vfork()| when executing an external command > (like /usr/bin/ls) ... ;-( > ---- > Bye, > Roland > -- > __ . . __ > (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org > \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer > /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 > (;O/ \/ \O;) > _______________________________________________ > ksh93-integration-discuss mailing list > ksh93-integration-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ksh93-integration-discuss
