Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!umix!umich!mibte!gamma!ulysses!thumper!faline!bellcore!tness7!petro!swrinde!ut-sally!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!sp7040!obie!wes
From: wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: IPC facilities (shared memory)
Message-ID: <108@obie.UUCP>
Date: 2 Apr 88 05:31:37 GMT
References: <335@mancol.UUCP> <9844@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP> <150@marob.MASA.COM> <7541@ncoast.UUCP>
Organization: the Well of Souls
Lines: 18
Summary: Xenix does shared memory just like System V

In article <7541@ncoast.UUCP>, allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes:
>                                                           no telling from
> my end whether System V shared memory is implemented in terms of Xenix shared
> data or vice versa or if they're separate facilities (but they *do* share a
> global pte table, according to the Xenix V/386 manual at work!).

According to Amy Snader of SCO, the Xenix-style shared data in Xenix V
is implemented on top of *the System V shared memory system.*  Given
this, System V code should run on Xenix without a hitch.  Amy's a tech
type, not a salesweenie; she should know.

	Wes Peters

(Hi Amy!  You *knew* better than to send that message, didn't you?!?!?)
-- 
    /\              -  "Against Stupidity,  -    {backbones}!
   /\/\  .    /\    -  The Gods Themselves  -  utah-cs!utah-gr!
  /    \/ \/\/  \   -   Contend in Vain."   -  uplherc!sp7040!
 / U i n T e c h \  -       Schiller        -     obie!wes