> I was unsure about this one, partly because I don't understand it well > enough. I'll back out the change. In part, my thinking was that at > least if I stuck it in, the issue wouldn't be forgotten and someone who > does understand it might fix it properly.
Yes, I'm glad somebody did something about it, let's hope we can come to some good solution. > Judging by the vfork(2) man > page on Linux, I'm assuming it is just being used because at some point > in the past the small performance gain was worth it. Yes, but I wonder whether there was any system where this code wasn't broken from the beginning. The intention of vfork seems to be quite the contrary to how it is used in the code. Unfortunately I have too little experience on non-linux systems to know if a general change from vfork to fork is reasonable. Harald _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
