This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Configure patch for vfork et al on VMS
- From: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- To: "Douglas B. Rupp" <rupp at gnat dot com>
- Cc: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 11:52:52 -0800
- Subject: Re: Configure patch for vfork et al on VMS
- References: <031901c17e32$ff0dbec0$0500a8c0@lapcat>
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 12:39:41AM -0800, Douglas B. Rupp wrote:
> I'd appreciate some feedback on this patch.
vfork is not used by gcc, except in collect2, and collect2 shouldn't
be using it. (It does things in the child process that aren't safe
when vfork is used.) I'll clean this up.
The libiberty change seems sane to me; the uses of vfork in there are
I'm very surprised that pexecute, which unconditionally uses plain
fork, works on VMS at all. Is the CRTL redefining it as vfork behind
our back? If so, we need to stop using the "generic Unix" code for
(I once saw someone insist loudly that VMS had a true fork primitive,
but I have never seen any evidence for that.)