On March 31, 2003 10:20 pm, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
I'm not sure about that; it would be somewhat cleaner, but OTOH I'm not sure I like the idea of adding DOS functions in the portability layer...
However, if we are to depend on winegcc/winewrap, we need to be able to compile it anyway, no? And since it has a well defined semantics (that's much more commonly available than the fork/exec), it's not necessarily a bad addition.
I mean, there's nothing conceptually wrong with spawn/CreateProcess/etc. vs. fork+exec. However, on system that are spawn-based, it's *so* difficult to simulate fork+exec, and for no good reason, if all you need is to spawn another program. So it seems to me having spawn in a portability layer may actually be a good thing, since it's more semantically loaded than fork, and thus easier to simulate on a large range of systems.