Article View: comp.std.unix
Article #722Re: qfork() (again)
From: Doug Gwyn
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 1991 18:46
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 1991 18:46
16 lines
1315 bytes
1315 bytes
Submitted-by: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) In article <17402@cs.utexas.edu> michael@CS.UCLA.EDU (michael gersten) writes: >Now, why was it removed? What is wrong with it? vfork() wasn't removed; rather it was never added. The base document (/usr/group 1984 Standard) did not have vfork() but it did have fork(). There was no need for a second flavor of fork(). Standards and systems in general should provide one sufficiently good way to perform a given operation. There were only two major arguments for vfork(): efficiency of fork/exec, which is not a convincing argument, and that it provides a form of sharing data space between two processes, which was judged to be an undesirable form of providing such a facility. Volume-Number: Volume 22, Number 86
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<17454@cs.utexas.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!bellcore!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!jsqReferences:
<16992@cs.utexas.edu> <17010@cs.utexas.edu> <17402@cs.utexas.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!bellcore!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!jsq From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: comp.std.unix Subject: Re: qfork() (again) Message-ID: <17454@cs.utexas.edu> Date: 29 Jan 91 18:46:21 GMT References: <16992@cs.utexas.edu> <17010@cs.utexas.edu> <17402@cs.utexas.edu> Sender: jsq@cs.utexas.edu Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD. Lines: 16 Approved: jsq@cs.utexas.edu (Moderator, John S. Quarterman) X-Submissions: std-unix@uunet.uu.net