Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!emory!gatech!prism!jb107
From: jb107@prism.gatech.EDU (Jim Burns)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: vfork()
Message-ID: <24703@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: 20 Mar 91 00:26:00 GMT
References: <1991Mar19.181626.28739@dg-rtp.dg.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 20

in article <1991Mar19.181626.28739@dg-rtp.dg.com>, hunt@dg-rtp.rtp.dg.com (Greg Hunt) says:

> The vfork(2) system call does the same thing as the fork(2) system call
> except that the child process shares the same address space as the
> parent process, instead of having a complete copy of the parent's
> address space made for it during the fork.  It uses the same mechanism
> as fork(2) to indicate which process is the child (the call returns
> zero) and which process is the parent (the call returns the PID of the
> child).

The HP-UX man pages state that a particular implementation may make no
distinction between fork(2) and vfork(2), and programs should not depend
on vfork(2)'s distinctions. How true is this generally? If a vendor
provides vfork(2), can it be expected to be different from fork(2), in the
main?
-- 
BURNS,JIM (returned student & GT Research Institute staff member)
Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia Tech Station 30178,
Atlanta Georgia, 30332            | Internet: jb107@prism.gatech.edu
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!jb107