Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!ames!sgi!shinobu!odin!patton.wpd.sgi.com!jmb
From: jmb@patton.wpd.sgi.com (Doctor Software)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sgi
Subject: Re: bug in vfork semantics under IRIX 3.3.1
Message-ID: <1990Dec3.160645.3347@odin.corp.sgi.com>
Date: 3 Dec 90 16:06:45 GMT
References: <1990Nov29.035827.1302@alias.uucp> <1990Nov30.041307.15489@twinsun.com> <1990Dec2.195600.25725@odin.corp.sgi.com> <1990Dec3.024237.23749@twinsun.com>
Sender: news@odin.corp.sgi.com (Net News)
Reply-To: jmb@patton.wpd.sgi.com (Doctor Software)
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc.
Lines: 20

In article <1990Dec3.024237.23749@twinsun.com>, eggert@twinsun.com (Paul
Eggert) writes:
> ...
> If SGI wants to make it easy to port software to their machines,
> IRIX should have either a working vfork(), or no vfork() at all.
> 
> 
> 	The entire computer industry would grind to a halt if every company
> 	tried to make sure it only shipped "documented" entry points to it's
> 	libraries.
> 
> If IRIX's vfork() is indeed just an undocumented library entry point that has
> nothing to do with BSD's vfork(), then it should be given a different name.

You're right of course on both counts. The solution has already started
to work it's way through the mill out here ...

-- Jim Barton
   Silicon Graphics Computer Systems
   jmb@sgi.com