Author gregory.p.smith
Recipients alex, benjamin.peterson, gennad, gregory.p.smith, neologix
Date 2014-01-01.21:17:38
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1388611059.05.0.458743759532.issue20104@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
Unless it could replace the fork+exec code path in its entirety, which I do not believe is possible, I see posix_spawn() as a distraction and additional maintenance burden with no benefit.

http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7999959899/functions/posix_spawn.html

Read the RATIONALE section.  The posix_spawn API was not created to make subprocess creation easier (i'd argue that it is the same burden to setup a proper call to posix_spawn as it is to do everything right for fork and exec).

One notable thing posix_spawn() does not support: setsid() (start_new_session=True) of the child process.  Obviously it also couldn't handle the arbitrary preexec_fn but preexec_fn is in general considered harmful.
History
Date User Action Args
2014-01-01 21:17:39gregory.p.smithsetrecipients: + gregory.p.smith, benjamin.peterson, alex, neologix, gennad
2014-01-01 21:17:39gregory.p.smithsetmessageid: <1388611059.05.0.458743759532.issue20104@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2014-01-01 21:17:39gregory.p.smithlinkissue20104 messages
2014-01-01 21:17:38gregory.p.smithcreate