Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!psuvax1!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!usc!samsung!munnari.oz.au!goanna!ok
From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: fork() is returning > 0  ???
Message-ID: <4232@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>
Date: 10 Nov 90 09:32:43 GMT
References: <2691@ux.acs.umn.edu>
Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
Lines: 20

In article <2691@ux.acs.umn.edu>, eric@ux.acs.umn.edu (Merlinus Ambrosius) writes:
> Can you explain why in this piece of code, fork() is returning a value
> other than -1 or 0?

Because it ought to.  RTFM.  If you're talking about the UNIX fork(2)
system call, it yields one of three results:
    -1 => something went wrong, we've still just one process and this is it
     0 => forking worked, and _this_ process is the child
     N => forking worked, _this_ process is the parent, and the
	  child process has process it N.  If you are going to wait for
	  the child to finish, you _need_ this number.
(Look at the DIAGNOSTICS section of the fork(2) manual page.)

> |Eric (the "Mentat-Philosopher") Hendrickson	      University of Minnesota

Um, if you're a Mentat, how come you need a computer?  Mentats were
supposed to be the human replacements for computers after the Butlerian Jihad.
-- 
The problem about real life is that moving one's knight to QB3
may always be replied to with a lob across the net.  --Alasdair Macintyre.