On Jun 6 15:43, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: > On 6/6/2013 1:27 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On Jun 6 11:06, Warren Young wrote: > >>On 6/6/2013 10:52, Dan Kegel wrote: > >>> > >>>I wonder if we could get them to recognize the parent-child > >>>relationship somehow, and keep the same address space > >>>in the child. > >>> > >>>Just kidding. Hell would sooner freeze over. > >> > >>I don't know about that. For a long time, they had a bigger > >>conflict of interest with Cygwin due to SFU/SUA/Interix and the > >>POSIX subsystem. They announced SUA's doom a couple of years ago[1] > >>and the need for a separate native POSIX API is gone[2]. I even > >>recall reading on this list that Microsoft now recommends Cygwin, at > >>least unofficially. > >> > >>Perhaps Microsoft now has some incentive to create a native fork(2) > >>like call in their OS that Cygwin could use. (Or something close > >>enough, like Linux's clone(2).) > > > >The problem is not the call. Such a call exists, since Vista even > >one with very simple usage. The problem is that this call has > >been created for SUA, and some Win32 libs as well as the console > >subsystem don't work with this call because there never have been > >made provisions for a fork call in the Win32 libs. Chances for > >a change are rather low. > > So I should put away my ice-skates and pitchforks? Wait, was that > a pun? ;-)
Sorry, I don't get the ice-skates pun. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
