Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!uwvax!cottage!lm
From: lm@cottage.WISC.EDU (Larry McVoy)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Fork and Join, Pipe in C
Message-ID: <3754@spool.WISC.EDU>
Date: Fri, 26-Jun-87 19:28:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: spool.3754
Posted: Fri Jun 26 19:28:03 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Jun-87 11:08:44 EDT
References: <7737@brl-adm.ARPA> <1186@ius2.cs.cmu.edu> <8174@utzoo.UUCP> <1006@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <22181@sun.uucp>
Sender: news@spool.WISC.EDU
Reply-To: lm@cottage.WISC.EDU (Larry McVoy)
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 21

In article <22181@sun.uucp> guy%gorodish@Sun.COM (Guy Harris) writes:
$ > For some n>3, /bin/csh will presumably be updated when vfork changes.
$ > If some VM system implements a copy-on-write fork and changes vfork on
$ > NOW, they will break csh.
$ 
$ No, they will NOT!  They will merely reveal that "csh" is ALREADY broken
$ by virtue of relying on something that was *explicitly documented* as
$ a quirk of the implementation that was not to be relied on.  

Lighten up, Guy, you sound hysterical.  Csh is not "broken", at least not 
by any reasonable definition - it runs, does it not?  Lots  of people use 
it every day.  

Furthermore, do you realize how ridiculous it is to say that csh is broken
due to its use of vfork()?  Correct me if I am wrong (I'm sure you will)
but I believe vfork() was implemented *specifically* for csh.  Irregardless
of what the man page says (you listen to man pages?  Use the force, read the
source) the definitive use of vfork() is how it is used in csh.


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