From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
Cc: GDB Patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] Zap more #ifdef HAVE_VFORK
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 12:14:00 -0000
Message-id: <1010406191342.ZM32069@ocotillo.lan>
References: <3ABF722C.EDDEF9BC@cygnus.com> <1010327002437.ZM2540@ocotillo.lan> <3ACE0F3C.A0A184B2@cygnus.com> <ac131313@cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-04/msg00076.html

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