Re: posix_spawn() instead of fork()?

[Barath Aron]

On 03/14/2018 10:21 AM, Edward Welbourne wrote:

You might get lucky, but the maintainer probably has many other things
to do - your chances will be considerably better if you write a patch
that does it and offer that as implementation.  So perhaps a better
question to ask would be "Would you be receptive to a patch implementing
an alternate version ..."

Eddy.


You have right. But at least my implicit question got answered: no one 
is working on the posix_spawn() implementation. :)
Unfortunatelly, now I'm rewriting the calc's [1] configure [2] 
mechanism, because it cannot handle cross-compilation.

After I'm done with it, I'll jump into the posix_spawn() thing.

Áron

[1] http://www.isthe.com/chongo/tech/comp/calc/
[2] svn://repo.hu/calc-scc/trunk


___
Bug-make mailing list
Bug-make@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make

Re: posix_spawn() instead of fork()?

[Edward Welbourne]

Barath Aron (13 March 2018 21:47)
> I'd like to build projects on a system that lacks fork() and vfork()
> support, but has posix_spawn(). Would you implement an alternate version
> using posix_spawn() to spawn child processes?

You might get lucky, but the maintainer probably has many other things
to do - your chances will be considerably better if you write a patch
that does it and offer that as implementation.  So perhaps a better
question to ask would be "Would you be receptive to a patch implementing
an alternate version ..."

Eddy.

___
Bug-make mailing list
Bug-make@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make