Re: PATCH: Guard uses of fork

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 08:00:05PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> 
> This patch uses the HAVE_WORKING_FORK and HAVE_WORKING_VFORK macros
> appropriately to guard calls to these functions.  (These macros are
> already being defined by autoconf; we just need to use them.)  I'm
> checking HAVE_WORKING_FORK, even in the case of the call to vfork in
> cli-cmds.c, because autoconf will "#define vfork fork" if there's no
> vfork, but there is fork.  I left the CANT_FORK define in place
> because that's defined by defs.h in the case __MSDOS__, and Dan says
> that configure isn't run in that case.  I think it could safely be
> removed (as surely, on __MSDOS__, nothing will define
> HAVE_WORKING_[V]FORK, but I don't have a way of testing that.  I'm
> happy to make that change as well, if people would like.
> 
> OK to apply?

This is OK.  I'm not sure my understanding of the DJGPP bits is
correct, but this patch is safe whether I was right or wrong, which is
why I like it.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC