Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!jsq
From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Re: qfork() (again)
Message-ID: <17453@cs.utexas.edu>
Date: 29 Jan 91 06:55:06 GMT
References: <16992@cs.utexas.edu> <17010@cs.utexas.edu> <17402@cs.utexas.edu>
Sender: jsq@cs.utexas.edu
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Lines: 17
Approved: jsq@cs.utexas.edu (Moderator, John S. Quarterman)
X-Submissions: std-unix@uunet.uu.net

Submitted-by: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)

In article <17402@cs.utexas.edu> michael@CS.UCLA.EDU (michael gersten) writes:
>So its a call that is at least, if not more, efficient on a larger
>variety of hardware platforms.
>Now, why was it removed? What is wrong with it?

Why have it at *all*?  If it is functionally equivalent to fork(), why in
k&r's name add another call that does exactly the same thing?

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it;
sef@kithrup.COM  |  I had a bellyache at the time."
-----------------+           -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.

Volume-Number: Volume 22, Number 85