Message332237
| Author |
izbyshev |
| Recipients |
gregory.p.smith, izbyshev, nanjekyejoannah, pablogsal, pitrou, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner |
| Date |
2018年12月20日.16:30:46 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1545323447.83.0.788709270274.issue35537@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
> I'm open to experiment to use vfork() in _posixsubprocess
Are you going to do experiments? If not, I can try to do some in early January.
> Using vfork() can cause new issues: that's why there is a POSIX_SPAWN_USE_VFORK flag (the caller had to explicitly enable it). See also bpo-34663 the history of vfork in posix_spawn() in the glibc.
I've studied that, and that's what I referred to as "quality-of-implementation" problem. After glibc devs removed heap allocations and tweaked some other things, they could use vfork() in all cases. "musl" libc never had those problems and used vfork() from the beginning. |
|