Re: vfork implementation

[Earnie Boyd <earnie_boyd@yahoo.com>]

--- Chris Faylor <cgf@cygnus.com> wrote:
> In benchmarks, this vfork is *at least* twice as fast as a normal fork.
> 

This is worth including it in the next release.

> So what do you think?  Is this good enough to go into the mythical next
> net release (B21)?  Should I make it a cygwin option, i.e.
> CYGWIN=fastvfork?

Not worth doing, the code I've seen that contains vfork always checks to see if
it's available.  If you don't want it just undefine the HAVE_VFORK or what ever
macro.

===
Earnie Boyd <mailto:earnie_boyd@yahoo.com>

Newbies, please visit
<http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/gw32/index.html>

(If you respond to the list, then please don't cc me)
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com