Re: [patch] Zap more #ifdef HAVE_VFORK

Kevin Buettner
2001-04-06T12:14:00Z

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