Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!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: <5986@titcce.cc.titech.ac.jp> Date: 6 Aug 90 15:38:52 GMT References: <5962@titcce.cc.titech.ac.jp> <5971@titcce.cc.titech.ac.jp> <.D+4Y53@ggpc2.ferranti.com> <5978@titcce.cc.titech.ac.jp> Sender: news@cc.titech.ac.jp Organization: Tokyo Institute of Technology Lines: 37 So far, no one else is interested in spawn. That's fine. Perhaps, this is my last post on the impossibility of spawn. I am also bored. In article peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >> You once (and still) failed to show a definition of spawn. >B. I already did. But it won't work. >> Then, this time, you failed to show code sequence of proper signal >> inheritance. > >What, to have the signal SIG_DFL in the child and SIG_IGN in the parent? No. As I pointed out, and you admitted, it's reverse is the case you can't handle. >> Now, you should realize what you are trying to do is impossible. > >No, just difficult. Like many things in small operating systems running >on hardware with no MMU, you have to work harder to accomplish the same >thing. We have been talking about UNIX. I don't want to continue the meaningless discussion by enlarging domain. >I'm not prepared to double the price of a product just so you can >fit a full UNIX kernel in the PROMs. You can do whatever you want with your own OS. I can't stop it. Masataka Ohta