This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch] Zap more #ifdef HAVE_VFORK
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: [patch] Zap more #ifdef HAVE_VFORK
- From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 12:13:42 -0700
- Cc: GDB Patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>
- References: <3ABF722C.EDDEF9BC@cygnus.com> <1010327002437.ZM2540@ocotillo.lan> <3ACE0F3C.A0A184B2@cygnus.com>
On Apr 6, 2:47pm, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > If we're going to use the AC_FUNC_VFORK mechanisms, might I suggest
> > that we do one of the following?
> >
> > 1) Document the fact that the autoconf cleverness *might* actually
> > have defined vfork to be fork at each use vfork.
>
> Ok by me. In general adding comments explaining how bits of code work
> are probably obvious fixes.
I'll see if I can fit this in one of these days...
> > 2) Create a gdb_fork() which does the appropriate thing *and*
> > documents the autoconf cleverness in the guts of gdb_fork().
>
> I don't think this one would work very well. From memory you're not
> ment to return from a vfork().
You're right. The results are undefined if vfork's caller returns.
Kevin