Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucla-cs!uci-ics!jarthur!bridge2!3comvax!tymix!cirrusl!sun1102!pete
From: pete@sun1102.UUCP (Peter R. Carpenter)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Why fork? (long, was Re: IBM PC prehistory)
Message-ID: <1239@cirrusl.UUCP>
Date: 17 Jan 90 01:00:11 GMT
References: <610@ssp11.idca.tds.philips.nl> <952@dms.UUCP>
Sender: news@cirrusl.UUCP
Reply-To: pete@cirrusl (Pete Carpenter)
Organization: CIRRUS LOGIC Inc.
Lines: 16

In article <952@dms.UUCP> albaugh@dms.UUCP (Mike Albaugh) writes:
>
>	SO--- Why do we _still_ use fork() for all these near-trivial
>cases.  [stuff deleted]

>1) It can be used for part of spawn _and_ for actual task-splitting
>	(problem subdivision). Why have two calls when one will do?
>

Actually, the Berkley folks have a system call vfork(), which does the 
fork/exec in one operation. But of course, it is not compatible with Sys V.

---
Pete Carpenter, Cirrus Logic Inc, 1463 Centre Pointe Dr, Milpitas, CA 95035
{amdahl,ames,apple,bunker,pyramid}!oliveb!tymix!cirrusl!pete   408-945-8300
---------------------------------------------------------------------------