Article View: comp.std.unix
Article #699Re: qfork()
From: Doug Gwyn
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 1991 22:15
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 1991 22:15
15 lines
1337 bytes
1337 bytes
Submitted-by: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) In article <16213@cs.utexas.edu> jason@cnd.hp.com (Jason Zions) writes: >I think that loosens the restriction too much. The intent of the text, I >believe, is that *doing* anything between qfork() and exec*() results in >undefined behavior. Checking a variable doesn't *do* anything in this sense. >The text tries to sidestep the issue of "is qfork() a 4.2BSD-style >share-memory pseudo-fork or is it a real fork or what?" We (IEEE P1003) deliberately omitted vfork() from the POSIX spec because it was not necessary, given a decent implementation of fork(). Why is this notion being reintroduced (quite carelessly so far as I can tell from the quotes so far) for 1003.1a? Volume-Number: Volume 22, Number 66
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<16875@cs.utexas.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!jsqReferences:
<16066@cs.utexas.edu> <16213@cs.utexas.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!jsq From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: comp.std.unix Subject: Re: qfork() Message-ID: <16875@cs.utexas.edu> Date: 7 Jan 91 22:15:46 GMT References: <16066@cs.utexas.edu> <16213@cs.utexas.edu> Sender: jsq@cs.utexas.edu Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD. Lines: 15 Approved: jsq@cs.utexas.edu (Moderator, John S. Quarterman) X-Submissions: std-unix@uunet.uu.net