From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Steven Tamm Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: fork v vfork (was Re: Mac OS X: Rebuild Require after Security Update 2002-11-21) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 09:45:17 -0800 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v548) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1038332843 10434 80.91.224.249 (26 Nov 2002 17:47:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:47:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18Gjnu-0002iA-00 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 18:47:22 +0100 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18Gju7-0002sd-00 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 18:53:47 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18Gjmv-0003R1-00; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:46:21 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 18Gjm0-0002BV-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:45:24 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 18Gjly-0002AA-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:45:23 -0500 Original-Received: from smtpout.mac.com ([17.250.248.87]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18Gjlx-0002A6-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:45:22 -0500 Original-Received: from asmtp02.mac.com (asmtp02-qfe3 [10.13.10.66]) by smtpout.mac.com (Xserve/MantshX 2.0) with ESMTP id gAQHjKau009114 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 09:45:20 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from mac.com ([12.236.43.16]) by asmtp02.mac.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id H672NJ00.OP7; Tue, 26 Nov 2002 09:45:19 -0800 Original-To: Andrew Choi In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.548) Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:9691 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:9691 I reported a bug with my test case. It's not that big a deal, I just wanted to make sure that something was being done about it. It's a fairly nasty bug if it hangs the system. It would also make the compile a little cleaner. WRT fork vs. vfork; on darwin the figures I've seen show a difference in performance about 100x, and has been getting worse in each release. What are people's feelings about conditionalizing the three calls to vfork (in process.c, callproc.c, and sysdep.c) so that it could become fork() on platforms that don't have a working VFORK. It would probably use the HAVE_VFORK conditional. -Steven On Tuesday, November 26, 2002, at 09:29 AM, Andrew Choi wrote: > Steven Tamm writes: > >> [...] So I think the problem may be with vfork not correctly cleaning >> up after itself if the process goes kablooy. Andrew, did you report a >> radar issue associated with this? > > Hi Steven, > > No. The problem and fix were submitted by Nozomu Ando on > emacs-pretest-bug a while ago. I thought it was acceptable to just use > fork so I left it at that. I have not received reports of other > problems related to this one. > > Would you like me to write a bug report to the darwin lists? Seems > like > they know about the problem with vfork but perhaps we can remind them. > > Andrew. >