Article View: comp.arch
Article #3408Re: Why fork? (long, was Re: IBM PC prehistory)
From: Peter R. Carpenter
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1990 01:00
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1990 01:00
16 lines
1215 bytes
1215 bytes
In article <952@dms.UUCP> albaugh@dms.UUCP (Mike Albaugh) writes:
>
> SO--- Why do we _still_ use fork() for all these near-trivial
>cases. [stuff deleted]
>1) It can be used for part of spawn _and_ for actual task-splitting
> (problem subdivision). Why have two calls when one will do?
>
Actually, the Berkley folks have a system call vfork(), which does the
fork/exec in one operation. But of course, it is not compatible with Sys V.
---
Pete Carpenter, Cirrus Logic Inc, 1463 Centre Pointe Dr, Milpitas, CA 95035
{amdahl,ames,apple,bunker,pyramid}!oliveb!tymix!cirrusl!pete 408-945-8300
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1239@cirrusl.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucla-cs!uci-ics!jarthur!bridge2!3comvax!tymix!cirrusl!sun1102!peteReferences:
<610@ssp11.idca.tds.philips.nl> <952@dms.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucla-cs!uci-ics!jarthur!bridge2!3comvax!tymix!cirrusl!sun1102!pete From: pete@sun1102.UUCP (Peter R. Carpenter) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Why fork? (long, was Re: IBM PC prehistory) Message-ID: <1239@cirrusl.UUCP> Date: 17 Jan 90 01:00:11 GMT References: <610@ssp11.idca.tds.philips.nl> <952@dms.UUCP> Sender: news@cirrusl.UUCP Reply-To: pete@cirrusl (Pete Carpenter) Organization: CIRRUS LOGIC Inc. Lines: 16