Alexey Izbyshev <izbys...@ispras.ru> added the comment:
> 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. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue35537> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
