Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!uwvax!cottage!lm
From: lm@cottage.WISC.EDU (Larry McVoy)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Fork and Join, Pipe in C
Message-ID: <3714@spool.WISC.EDU>
Date: Sun, 21-Jun-87 23:40:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: spool.3714
Posted: Sun Jun 21 23:40:41 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 23-Jun-87 00:58:03 EDT
References: <7737@brl-adm.ARPA> <1186@ius2.cs.cmu.edu> <8174@utzoo.UUCP> <21685@sun.uucp>
Sender: news@spool.WISC.EDU
Reply-To: lm@cottage.WISC.EDU (Larry McVoy)
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 17

In article <21685@sun.uucp> guy%gorodish@Sun.COM (Guy Harris) writes:
$ The only remaining reason to use vfork is that one has written ugly
$ and brain-damaged code that depends on the semantics of "vfork".

Well, now, I'm not quite sure I agree with this.  I'll admit that taking
advantage of the semantics of a doomed system call is ugly.  But suppose
I were to phrase it like this:  I wasn't taking advantage of vfork, I 
just had a need for shared memory.  Then it's probably ok, right? 
Everyone thinks shm is great, n'est pas?  (So when are we going to see
shm in 4.x?  Hmm?)

Don't misunderstand me - I'm not telling you to use vfork - I'm just
pointing out that code that uses the semantics of vfork is not
necessarily "ugly and brain-damaged."


Larry McVoy 	        lm@cottage.wisc.edu  or  uwvax!mcvoy