On Jul 18 17:41, Takashi Yano via Cygwin wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 09:51:11 +0200 > Corinna Vinschen via Cygwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, that's what I meant with my above paragraph, i.e. > > > > > > > > I checked the sources and I don't see any dependency to ch_spawn > > > > > > from a spawning process, in contrast to an exec'ing process. That > > > > > > doesn't mean there is none, just that I didn't find any. > > > > These external dependencies *should* only be of interest when performing > > an execve, but not when performing a spawnve. > > So, the previous patch might not correct. > The following makes more sense, I suppose. > > diff --git a/winsup/cygwin/spawn.cc b/winsup/cygwin/spawn.cc > index cb58b6eed..56fca6e45 100644 > --- a/winsup/cygwin/spawn.cc > +++ b/winsup/cygwin/spawn.cc > @@ -944,6 +944,7 @@ spawnve (int mode, const char *path, const char *const > *argv, > int ret; > > syscall_printf ("spawnve (%s, %s, %p)", path, argv[0], envp); > + child_info_spawn ch_spawn_local; > > if (!envp) > envp = empty_env; > @@ -961,7 +962,7 @@ spawnve (int mode, const char *path, const char *const > *argv, > case _P_WAIT: > case _P_DETACH: > case _P_SYSTEM: > - ret = ch_spawn.worker (path, argv, envp, mode); > + ret = ch_spawn_local.worker (path, argv, envp, mode); > break; > default: > set_errno (EINVAL);
Yep, indeed. -- Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: https://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: https://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
