Article View: comp.arch
Article #3399The trouble with fork() (Re: IBM PC prehistory)
From: Peter da Silva
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1990 19:10
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1990 19:10
14 lines
1314 bytes
1314 bytes
Fork() is an elegant concept, but as has been seen it leads to problems
implementing UNIX on a system without an MMU, or implementing a UNIX
lookalike on top of a non-UNIX O/S. It's possible, but expensive.
Wouldn't it be nice if there was a sanctioned P1003 subset that replaced
fork() with a combined fork()/exec() call (spawn?). Or just an addition
of spawn to the standard as an alternative process creation mechanism:
This would radically improve the performance of non-UNIX POSIX systems,
without compromising the capability of the standard...
--
_--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>.
/ \
\_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure!
v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<DW31DR7xds13@ficc.uu.net>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!texbell!sugar!ficc!peterReferences:
<7413@drilex.UUCP> <380@bambam.UUCP> <44106@wlbr.IMSD.CONTEL.COM> <610@ssp11.idca.tds.philips.nl>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.unix.questions,comp.misc Subject: The trouble with fork() (Re: IBM PC prehistory) Message-ID: <DW31DR7xds13@ficc.uu.net> Date: 16 Jan 90 19:10:15 GMT References: <7413@drilex.UUCP> <380@bambam.UUCP> <44106@wlbr.IMSD.CONTEL.COM> <610@ssp11.idca.tds.philips.nl> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Followup-To: comp.misc Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 9