https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18006
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
Note GCC will use posix_spawn if it is supported since GCC 14
(r14-5310-g879cf9ff45d940). THis is better than both fork/vfork followed by
exec anyways.
--- Additional Comments From d dot yu dot bolkhovityanov at inp dot nsk dot su
2004-10-15 13:02 ---
Andrew, this is not "strace bug", but a vfork() bug that it can't be traced --
strace simply CAN'T do anything to fix it.
If some versions of GCC use fork(), and others -- vfork(), so, GC
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-10-15 11:55
---
But who cares that is strace bug which should be fixed because it works on the BSD
(and in fact the BSD
got rid of vfork for a while but now they are adding it back because they found it can
faster).
So c
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2004-10-15 09:46 ---
> This is wrong. At least strace has no problem following vfork.
I take that back. My tests were broken.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18006
--- Additional Comments From d dot yu dot bolkhovityanov at inp dot nsk dot su
2004-10-15 09:46 ---
> Use of vfork is still a win if you are going to call execve anyway because the
> address space does not need to be copied.
Yes, it is a tiny win, since vfork() doesn't require copying
--- Additional Comments From schwab at suse dot de 2004-10-15 09:32 ---
> - vfork() is deprecated -- it was a BSD kludge from old no-MMU-days (a
> politically-correct reason :-).
Use of vfork is still a win if you are going to call execve anyway because the
address space does not nee
