From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27796 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2002 21:00:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 27787 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2002 21:00:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Oct 2002 21:00:42 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9MKdMw17818 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 16:39:22 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9ML0Zl24334; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 17:00:35 -0400 Received: from redhat.com (reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9ML0YD21432; Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:00:34 -0700 Message-ID: <3DB5BC72.3DE58BD@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:00:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, fnasser@redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Use vfork in shell_escape References: <20021022015205.GA22323@nevyn.them.org> <3DB5BAE9.2A01D78F@redhat.com> <20021022205654.GA10208@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00424.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 01:54:01PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > > > This patch is pretty obvious. I couldn't figure out why my machine was > > > running out of memory; forking GDB to run an 'ls' during the maint.exp tests > > > can be a bit heavy, since it may have all of glibc's debug info loaded. > > > This patch seems logical to me... OK to commit? > > > > Not as is. There's some auto-confery involved, since many systems > > (some systems?) don't have vfork. Grep for vfork in fork-child.c. > > Not as much as there used to be. But you're right, I goofed. OK with > the addition of '#include "gdb_vfork.h"', which is all fork-child.c > uses now? For all I know, that's OK -- but I don't know. I'll step back now, and wait for someone who does.