Re: qfork() (the spawn of Spawn())

Article View: comp.std.unix

Article #709

#709

From: Doug Gwyn
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 1991 05:11

15 lines
1299 bytes

Submitted-by: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)

In article <16992@cs.utexas.edu> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <16875@cs.utexas.edu> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>> We (IEEE P1003) deliberately omitted vfork() from the POSIX spec
>> because it was not necessary, given a decent implementation of fork().
>POSIX is not supposed to be a standard for UNIX only. In many non-UNIX
>environments a "decent implementation of fork" is quite difficult ...

Excuse me, but you're quite wrong.  P1003 decided deliberately that we
(I was there) would not compromise the (1003.1) interface in order to
accommodate "layered" implementations, for example on non-UNIX based
operating system kernels.

Volume-Number: Volume 22, Number 73

Technical Details

Message-ID: <17010@cs.utexas.edu>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!jsq

References: <16213@cs.utexas.edu> <16875@cs.utexas.edu> <16992@cs.utexas.edu>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!jsq
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Re: qfork() (the spawn of Spawn())
Message-ID: <17010@cs.utexas.edu>
Date: 17 Jan 91 05:11:55 GMT
References: <16213@cs.utexas.edu> <16875@cs.utexas.edu> <16992@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

Reply to Parent Message