Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!decwrl!wuarchive!texbell!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: vfork (was Re: Paging page tables) Message-ID: Date: 13 Jul 90 16:40:58 GMT References: <920@dgis.dtic.dla.mil> <5830@titcce.cc.titech.ac.jp> <5DL4SPD@xds13.ferranti.com> <5855@titcce.cc.titech.ac.jp> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 16 In article <5855@titcce.cc.titech.ac.jp> mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta) writes: > As far as I know, it is impossible to implement spawn, because there > is no rational definition of spawn. Well, you've about convinced me that vfork is an adequate replacement for spawn from an efficiency standpoint, and I agree it's a lot cleaner. I'm not convinced that it is *as* efficient, particularly in a non-mapped execution environment, but it should be adequate. However, there are any number of "rational definitions of spawn", since outside of UNIX it is about the only process creation primitive that exists. It's also how just about every thread implementation that I know of implements thread creation... including Mach. You can find as many varieties of spawn as you wish by perusing other operating system's programming manuals. It would be redundant for me to duplicate any particular definition here. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180.