Newsgroups: comp.unix.aix Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!raven.alaska.edu!milton!uw-beaver!cornell!batcomputer!theory.TC.Cornell.EDU!shore From: shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore) Subject: Re: vfork() (was Re: RS6000 questions/comments) Message-ID: <1991Jun29.170514.12627@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> Sender: news@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: theory.tc.cornell.edu Organization: Cornell Theory Center References: <351@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> <1991Jun29.072930.24674@kithrup.COM> Distribution: usa Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1991 17:05:14 GMT In article deraadt@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Theo de Raadt) writes: >Sean, I'm disapointed in you. [ code deleted ] >That's the way that stdio works. Yes, it is, but that isn't what's being discussed. After a vfork, both processes are sharing the same address space and data structures. One process can change the contents of a data structure without informing the other, in the absence of an agreed-upon locking mechanism. Do you *really* want one process free()-ing all the FILE * out from under the other process? Fork works differently, of course, because the two processes are (logically) not sharing the same address space. -- Software longa, hardware brevis Melinda Shore - Cornell Information Technologies - shore@tc.cornell.edu