Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!sri-spam!mordor!lll-tis!ames!amdcad!sun!imagen!auspyr!altnet!altos86!nate
From: nate@altos86.UUCP (Nathaniel Ingersoll)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Fork and Join, Pipe in C
Message-ID: <348@altos86.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 30-Jun-87 10:41:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: altos86.348
Posted: Tue Jun 30 10:41:52 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Jul-87 08:13:13 EDT
References: <7737@brl-adm.ARPA> <1186@ius2.cs.cmu.edu> <8174@utzoo.UUCP> <21685@sun.uucp> <113@xyzzy.UUCP>
Reply-To: nate@altos86.UUCP (Nathaniel Ingersoll)
Organization: Altos Computer Systems, San Jose, CA
Lines: 27
Summary: Spawn

In article <113@xyzzy.UUCP> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) writes:
[deleted]
>The counterargument is that each system call should do only one thing,
>and they should be combined to make more complicated operations.  In
>this sense, I agree that only fork() and exec() are needed.  But
>engineers don't build out of nand-gates only, though that is all that is
>logically necessary.  They use gates that more clearly convey intent,
>and thus can gain significant efficency.  Similarly, create_process()
>guarantees the kernel important information about the programmer's
>intent that combinations of fork() and exec() do not, and in this case I
>think the practical benefits of create_process() outweigh the
>theoretical benefits of a "pure" "simple" set of system calls.
>...
>Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw

I have seen, on what seemed to be an extended port of BSD 4.2 by Ridge,
a system call called spawn(), which took arguments like execve(),
if my memory serves me correctly.  The idea was that it internally
	fork()
	execve(...args...)
and therefore didn't have to bother with process copying.
Anyone else seen this?

 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<	Nathaniel Ingersoll				>
<	Altos Computer Systems				>
 vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv