➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author izbyshev
Recipients gregory.p.smith, izbyshev, nanjekyejoannah, pablogsal, pitrou, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner
Date 2018-12-20.16:30:46
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1545323447.83.0.788709270274.issue35537@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content 
> I'm open to experiment to use vfork() in _posixsubprocess
Are you going to do experiments? If not, I can try to do some in early January.

> Using vfork() can cause new issues: that's why there is a POSIX_SPAWN_USE_VFORK flag (the caller had to explicitly enable it). See also bpo-34663 the history of vfork in posix_spawn() in the glibc.

I've studied that, and that's what I referred to as "quality-of-implementation" problem. After glibc devs removed heap allocations and tweaked some other things, they could use vfork() in all cases. "musl" libc never had those problems and used vfork() from the beginning.
History
Date User Action Args
2018-12-20 16:30:48izbyshevsetrecipients: + izbyshev, gregory.p.smith, pitrou, vstinner, serhiy.storchaka, pablogsal, nanjekyejoannah
2018-12-20 16:30:47izbyshevsetmessageid: <1545323447.83.0.788709270274.issue35537@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2018-12-20 16:30:47izbyshevlinkissue35537 messages
2018-12-20 16:30:46izbyshevcreate