unarchive 14752
On 28/05/14 08:15, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 05/26/2014 10:10 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> On 05/26/2014 10:00 PM, Azat Khuzhin wrote:
So the issue here is that sort is allocating
a large buffer up front thus impacting the fork().
Really sort(1) should be trying to
On 05/26/2014 10:10 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
On 05/26/2014 10:00 PM, Azat Khuzhin wrote:
So the issue here is that sort is allocating
a large buffer up front thus impacting the fork().
Really sort(1) should be trying to avoid this issue
in the first place, and the issue is already logged at:
Pádraig Brady wrote:
Anything where you need to interact with the sub process like setting up files
to communicate etc. is going to have portability issues. Even using execvp()
is problematic I understand.
As long as the child doesn't touch parent memory that the parent needs,
it should be
On 05/26/2014 10:00 PM, Azat Khuzhin wrote:
So the issue here is that sort is allocating
a large buffer up front thus impacting the fork().
Really sort(1) should be trying to avoid this issue
in the first place, and the issue is already logged at:
http://bugs.gnu.org/14752
Yes this is the
