Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!sun-barr!ccut!titcca!cc.titech.ac.jp!necom830!mohta
From: mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Spawn is impossible to define (was Re: vfork)
Message-ID: <5978@titcce.cc.titech.ac.jp>
Date: 2 Aug 90 09:17:59 GMT
References: <5962@titcce.cc.titech.ac.jp> <OP-4G62@xds13.ferranti.com> <5971@titcce.cc.titech.ac.jp> <.D+4Y53@ggpc2.ferranti.com>
Sender: news@cc.titech.ac.jp
Organization: Tokyo Institute of Technology
Lines: 19

In article <.D+4Y53@ggpc2.ferranti.com>
	peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

>Wrong on two counts. Setting a deferred signal (inherited as caught) solves
>the case *I* mentioned. The one *you* came up with can be solved with normal
>UNIX signals, and I explained how. If you can't remember a message I posted
>only a few days ago I'm not going to bother repeating it.

You once (and still) failed to show a definition of spawn.

Then, this time, you failed to show code sequence of proper signal
inheritance.

Now, you should realize what you are trying to do is impossible.

If there is any other person who still thinks spawn is a nice idea,
show me your definition of spawn.

						Masataka Ohta