Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!peregrine!elroy!spl1!laidbak!att!lzaz!bds
From: bds@lzaz.ATT.COM (B.SZABLAK)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: NeXT & "threads"
Message-ID: <8611@spl1.UUCP>
Date: 1 Nov 88 23:10:03 GMT
References: <10736@reed.UUCP> <363@thor.wright.EDU> <401@halley.UUCP> <222@daitc.daitc.mil>
Sender: news@spl1.UUCP
Organization: AT&T ISL Lincroft NJ USA
Lines: 10

In article <222@daitc.daitc.mil>, jkrueger@daitc.daitc.mil (Jonathan Krueger) writes:
> I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong here: CICS tasks can
> only share address space, they cannot get a separate address space
> even if protection needed and overhead justified.  Unix processes can
> only use a separate address space, they cannot share address space
> even if well behaved, trusted, and frequently executed.

Using fork() you get processes that share text space, and using shared
memory operations (shmop() et. al.) selected portions of data space may
be shared between processes.