Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!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: <17597@cs.utexas.edu>
Date: 3 Feb 91 05:30:06 GMT
References: <17402@cs.utexas.edu> <17527@cs.utexas.edu> <17572@cs.utexas.edu>
Sender: jsq@cs.utexas.edu
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Lines: 18
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 <17572@cs.utexas.edu> eggert@twinsun.uucp (Paul Eggert) writes:
>What's wrong with the following definition, which permits the usual actions
>between fork() and exec()?  Isn't this definition easy to explain and support?
[stuff]

Because one of the few reasons I would like vfork() (or something similar)
is now missing:  the parent does not execute until the child has exit'ed or
exec'ed something.

-- 
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 99