[cfe-dev] Why clang needs to fork into itself?

[Nico Weber]

I believe there was a thread about not forking the driver a while ago, but
I'm unable to find it. As far as I remember, Chris Lattner wanted to get
rid of it for aesthetic reasons and to save the milliseconds of overhead it
adds (I think doing this has originally been the plan, see the "fork/exec"
section on
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2009-December/007211.html). At
the end, the decision was made to keep the subprocess for cc1, but I don't
remember all the reasons. I think crash reporting was part of the
discussion, but there was half a plan to keep that feature with in-process
crash reporting somehow.

Maybe someone still has a copy of that thread in their inbox? Keywords
"lattner dgregor cc1 crash fork exec" or similar might find it.


On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Rafael Espíndola <
rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 27 January 2014 17:27, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:
> > As an alternative, on Windows we could rig up some kind of SEH filter to
> do
> > crash recovery.  Then we could save the subprocess invocation and speed
> > things up.
>
> Breakpad is used by both chrome and firefox for this. If going this
> path, please make sure the same technique is used for all systems.
>
> Cheers,
> Rafale
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20140128/944baf9d/attachment.html>