Hello! > Can you at least tell when (year and month) this discussion took place?
I was able to find only this in ML archive: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2013-01/msg00113.html The rest of discussion was held in private email. For some weird reason patch mails were rejected as spam by Cygwin ML, so i was unable to post there. IIRC i gave them to Reni Urban. Anyway, by the moment they are well tested. I use patched Make for my daily activity, it works fine. > In any case, I think such a change can only be accepted as an optional > feature, preferably controlled by a command-line option. I think it's > wrong to use this by default, certainly not to let users a fire escape > in case this causes differences in behavior in some use cases. Well, i guess you are Masters here and you can do whatever you want. Just my last opinion on this: it's not needed. It would just introduce one more uncertainty and some more conditionals. Both spawn() and fork() work correctly under Cygwin, this is well known fact. The performance issue with fork() by itself is also well known. AFAIK Cygwin maintainers even tried to contact Microsoft in order to resolve this, and Microsoft (of course) apparently doesn't care. I have tested my patched version with make's bundled test suite. As well as by some heavy load like building ARM-targeted GNU toolchain with -j9 option or building Linux kernel (yes, under Cygwin). Works fine. Kind regards, Pavel Fedin Expert Engineer Samsung Electronics Research center Russia _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
