Article View: comp.sys.next.programmer
Article #1641shared memory (was Re: mmap - System call in 3.0 still there ???)
From: moose
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:19
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:19
24 lines
1378 bytes
1378 bytes
In article <dillon.0oba@overload.Berkeley.CA.US> dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon) writes: > In article <1992Sep19.120245.1274@gamelan> thf@zelator.in-berlin.de (Thomas Funke) writes: > > > >Hi you lucky 3.0-owners ... > > > > The only way, apparently, to share WRITABLE pages under mach is through > forking children and the use of vm_inherit(). This, unfortunately, is > also useless for many purposes. > If this were the case, then you would be unable to attach a process using gdb. If you look at vm_read and vm_write, you can see how to transfer pages at will. While it's not as great as 1 physical page being used by two different tasks, it is functionally equivelant. -- Michael Rutman | moose@svcdudes.com Cubist | makes me a NeXT programmer Software Ventures | maker of MicroPhone Pro #include <std.disclaimer> | really offensive political statement
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Sep28.171946.22893@svcdudes.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!think.com!rpi!psinntp!psinntp!svc!newsReferences:
<dillon.0oba@overload.Berkeley.CA.US>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.programmer Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!think.com!rpi!psinntp!psinntp!svc!news From: moose@svcdudes.com Subject: shared memory (was Re: mmap - System call in 3.0 still there ???) Message-ID: <1992Sep28.171946.22893@svcdudes.com> Sender: news@svcdudes.com Reply-To: moose@svcdudes.com Organization: Software Ventures, Inc. References: <dillon.0oba@overload.Berkeley.CA.US> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 17:19:46 GMT Lines: 24