From xemacs-m  Mon Jun 30 04:26:23 1997
Received: from altair.xemacs.org (steve@xemacs.miranova.com [206.190.83.19])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA17030
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Mon, 30 Jun 1997 04:26:22 -0500 (CDT)
Received: (from steve@localhost)
	by altair.xemacs.org (8.8.6/8.8.6) id CAA06873;
	Mon, 30 Jun 1997 02:29:12 -0700
Mail-Copies-To: never
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: GNATS id misc/103, C-g crashes XEmacs
References: <199706261923.PAA05924@anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> 	<rxspvt92eg2.fsf@midnight.ecf.teradyne.com> 	<199706262244.SAA06358@anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> 	<m2wwnh7z5n.fsf@altair.xemacs.org> 	<QQcvqy26357.199706262303@crystal.WonderWorks.COM> 	<QQcvrd27398.199706270020@crystal.WonderWorks.COM> 	<199706271520.LAA01302@anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> 	<byen9lr26l.fsf@midget.math.ethz.ch> <199706300316.XAA06971@anthem.CNRI.Reston.Va.US> <bybu4oqy8a.fsf@midget.math.ethz.ch>
X-Url: http://www.miranova.com/%7Esteve/
X-Face: #!T9!#9s-3o8)*uHlX{Ug[xW7E7Wr!*L46-OxqMu\xz23v|R9q}lH?cRS{rCNe^'[`^sr5"
 f8*@r4ipO6Jl!:Ccq<xoV[Qz2u8<8-+Vwf2gzJ44lf_/y9OaQ`@#Q65{U4/TC)i2`~/M&QI$X>p:9I
 OSS'2{-)-4wBnVeg0S\O4Al@)uC[pD|+
X-Attribution: sb
From: Steven L Baur <steve@xemacs.org>
In-Reply-To: Jan Vroonhof's message of "30 Jun 1997 10:41:25 +0200"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Date: 30 Jun 1997 02:29:11 -0700
Message-ID: <m2lo3se8wo.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
Lines: 12
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.60/XEmacs 20.3(beta11) - "Stockholm"

Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof@math.ethz.ch> writes:

> But I meant. Can you safely replace vfrork by fork under there too.
> The 19.x series definitely has its problems with child processes, and
> this the first thing that ever came close to a clue about it.

The question really is vfork safe anywhere?  I believe the answer is
`no', and switching from vfork to fork is The Right Thing to do in
20.3 and 19.16.
-- 
steve@calag.com baur
Unsolicited commercial e-mail will be billed at $250/message.

