On 7/30/2018 4:26 AM, Barath Aron wrote:
On 07/30/2018 10:23 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
Python 3.8 will support os.posix_spawn(). I would like to see it used
whenever possible instead of fork+exec, since it's faster and it can
be safer on some platforms. Pablo Salgado is your guy for that.
Vic
Supporting a new platform requires a lot work. It would be more reasonable
for you to first try to get a good support of the master branch before
start thinking how to support Python versions.
Python 2.7 in 2018? Really? Tick tock:
https://pythonclock.org/
http://python3statement.org/
Usually, we
On 07/30/2018 10:23 AM, Victor Stinner wrote:
Python 3.8 will support os.posix_spawn(). I would like to see it used
whenever possible instead of fork+exec, since it's faster and it can
be safer on some platforms. Pablo Salgado is your guy for that.
Victor
Awesome! Will this backported to 2.
Python 3.8 will support os.posix_spawn(). I would like to see it used
whenever possible instead of fork+exec, since it's faster and it can be
safer on some platforms. Pablo Salgado is your guy for that.
Victor
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@pytho
On 07/29/2018 06:02 PM, Berker Peksağ wrote:
There is an open issue to add os.posix_spawn() at
https://bugs.python.org/issue20104
Seems promising, but 3.7 does not support it. And I don't see whether
Python will work without fork().
- bpo-20104: Expose posix_spawn as a low level API in the os m
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 5:44 PM, Barath Aron wrote:
> My question is that the _posixsubprocess.c can be prepared to use
> posix_spawn(3) instead of fork(2)? Maybe the UNIX/Linux version can also
> benefit from it, see:
> https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/ruby-posix-spawn
There is an open issue t
