From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com>
Cc: GDB Patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] Zap more #ifdef HAVE_VFORK
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 11:47:00 -0000
Message-id: <3ACE0F3C.A0A184B2@cygnus.com>
References: <3ABF722C.EDDEF9BC@cygnus.com> <1010327002437.ZM2540@ocotillo.lan>
X-SW-Source: 2001-04/msg00069.html

Kevin Buettner wrote:
> 
> On Mar 26, 11:45am, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> > Missed this when re-fixing the autoconfed vfork() call.
> [...]
> >     /* Clone the debugger. */
> > - #ifdef HAVE_VFORK
> >     if (debug_fork)
> >       debugger_pid = fork ();
> >     else
> >       debugger_pid = vfork ();
> > - #else
> > -   debugger_pid = fork ();
> > - #endif
> 
> This didn't make any sense to me at first.  It did when I went back
> and (re)read

I know it doesn't make sense :-)  It is how autoconf does it though :-/

> 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.

>     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().

	Andrew