Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!swbatl!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Spawn is impossible to define (was Re: vfork)
Message-ID: <E5V4K+F@xds13.ferranti.com>
Date: 23 Jul 90 15:53:39 GMT
References: <920@dgis.dtic.dla.mil> <5830@titcce.cc.titech.ac.jp> <5DL4SPD@xds13.ferranti.com> <5855@titcce.cc.titech.ac.jp> <Q=M4GG5@xds13.ferranti.com> <5893@titcce.cc.titech.ac.jp> <XRS4OLF@xds13.ferranti.com> <5929@titcce.cc.titech.ac.jp>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 10

In article <5929@titcce.cc.titech.ac.jp> mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta) writes:
> Thanks for showing the inherent complexity and impossibility of defining
> spawn call, again.

Two more arguments than "exec" is too much complexity?

> HOW DO YOU THINK ABOUT SIGNALS?

Signals can be reliably saved and restored, so they can continue to be
inherited across spawn as they are now inherited across fork and exec.
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
+1 713 274 5180.   'U`
<peter@ficc.ferranti.com>