Message207139
| Author |
gregory.p.smith |
| Recipients |
alex, benjamin.peterson, gennad, gregory.p.smith, neologix |
| Date |
2014年01月01日.21:17:38 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1388611059.05.0.458743759532.issue20104@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
Unless it could replace the fork+exec code path in its entirety, which I do not believe is possible, I see posix_spawn() as a distraction and additional maintenance burden with no benefit.
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7999959899/functions/posix_spawn.html
Read the RATIONALE section. The posix_spawn API was not created to make subprocess creation easier (i'd argue that it is the same burden to setup a proper call to posix_spawn as it is to do everything right for fork and exec).
One notable thing posix_spawn() does not support: setsid() (start_new_session=True) of the child process. Obviously it also couldn't handle the arbitrary preexec_fn but preexec_fn is in general considered harmful. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2014年01月01日 21:17:39 | gregory.p.smith | set | recipients:
+ gregory.p.smith, benjamin.peterson, alex, neologix, gennad |
| 2014年01月01日 21:17:39 | gregory.p.smith | set | messageid: <1388611059.05.0.458743759532.issue20104@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2014年01月01日 21:17:39 | gregory.p.smith | link | issue20104 messages |
| 2014年01月01日 21:17:38 | gregory.p.smith | create |
|