>> [...] - "just use fork" is a very common response, but no matter how >> fork gets implemented, vfork() when used correctly always performs >> better by huge margins. > But most of those cases are handled just as well by posix_spawn.
Possibly - but most of a system's operation is handled perfectly well by no more than a few dozen syscalls. Is that a reason to get rid of the rest? If you want, sure, use posix_spawn when it's applicable. But it's also nice to have something that can handle the cases where it _isn't_ applicable - which is, in a sense, what fork() is for, but it's also nice to not cripple performance unnecessarily. And, in my case, the only easy answer was to make vfork() equivalent to fork() in the _emulated_ system, which I consider a last-ditch fallback. The new syscall is almost as easy (for me) and much closer to correct. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mo...@rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
