Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions Subject: Re: Implementing `fork' in a single address space Message-ID: <7278@ficc.uu.net> Date: 12 Dec 89 23:34:40 GMT References: <10131@june.cs.washington.edu> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 19 This is why I wish POSIX provided an alternative to the fork() semantics: In article <10131@june.cs.washington.edu> pardo@june.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) writes: > I'm having problems figuring out how to implement `fork' correctly in > one address space. You have to copy the entire stack and data segment on a context switch while the two forks of the program are both running. This is typically implemented by forcing them to swap. Once one exits or execs, you can quit doing it. > * Are there any pd (public-domain, or freeware) micro-unicies that I > can look at? MINIX, by Andy Tannenbaum. ast@cs.vu.nl -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . 'U` Also or . "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com