Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 13:03:11 +0200 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Change vfork() to posix_spawn()? Message-ID: <k2v2te$ok1$1@ger.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <035514CA-81D6-407F-A2C1-51A9FB0E3A74@cederstrand.dk> References: <035514CA-81D6-407F-A2C1-51A9FB0E3A74@cederstrand.dk>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On 14/09/2012 09:49, Erik Cederstrand wrote: > Hello hackers, > > I'm looking through the Clang Analyzer scans on http://scan.freebsd.your.org/freebsd-head looking for false positives to report back to LLVM. There are quite a list of reports suggesting to change vfork() calls to posix_spawn(). Example from /bin/rpc: http://scan.freebsd.your.org/freebsd-head/bin.rcp/2012-09-12-amd64/report-nsOV80.html#EndPath > > I know nothing about this but I can see fork and posix_spawn have been discussed on this list previously. Is this a legitimate warning (in this case and in general in FreeBSD base)? Currently (on 9-stable at least), posix_spawn() is implemented as a wrapper around vfork(), so I doubt replacing one with the other would do much. [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAlBTDu8ACgkQ/QjVBj3/HSxuiwCffNvAgiKPU9grWind829tY9Ll EjkAn1Qw8j2WFyR61Zr4qpYY2NfEkQnf =D9gh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?k2v2te$ok1$1>