This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Actually, I just noticed this remark:
"In summary, current Windows implementations make it impossible to implement a perfectly reliable fork, and occasional fork failures are inevitable."
in winsup/doc/overview2.sgml in the source tree. Does that mean that, even with the improvements mentioned above, we cannot expect important Cygwin apps/scripts to always work reliably in a post-WinXP world? My company has been moving from Win2K/XP to Win7, so this would be important info for us.
So how serious is the above remark? I don't see anything quite that strongly-phrased in the FAQ. Maybe it should be mentioned there?
I would assume that "current Windows implementations" means XP and above. I have found it to be quite stable on Windows 7 once a rebase is done. I also believe that the possibility of "fork" failing has always been there - even in Cygwin 1.5. So, maybe the remark is not quite as scary as it might at first appear.
-- Larry
A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?
-- 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
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |