Gregory P. Smith <g...@krypto.org> added the comment:
Thanks for your _extremely detailed_ analysii of the (often sad) state of posix_spawn() on platforms in the world today. My first reaction to this was "but then we'll be owning our own custom posix_spawn-like implementation as if we'll do better at it than every individual libc variant." After reading this through and looking at your PR... I now consider that a good thing. =) We clearly can do better. vfork() is pretty simple and allows us to keep our semantics; providing benefits to existing users at no cost. The plethora of libc bugs surrounding posix_spawn() seem likely to persist within various environments in the world for years to come. No sense in us waiting for that to settle. As for your PR... a configure check for vfork, a news entry, and whatever other documentation updates seem appropriate. With this in place we may want to make the _use_posix_spawn() logic in subprocess.py stricter? That could be its own followup PR. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue35823> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
