Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!ucsd!rutgers!att!cbnews!lvc
From: lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C optimizer
Summary: so what
Keywords: C pure function optimization
Message-ID: <4359@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 26 Feb 89 15:14:05 GMT
References: <515@larry.UUCP> <9648@smoke.BRL.MIL> <36034@bbn.COM> <9705@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Organization: AT&T Network Systems
Lines: 16

In article <9705@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) writes:
! In article <4276@cbnews.ATT.COM> lvc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes:
! -How about if the left hand getpid() is called, and before the right hand
! -getpid() is called a signal comes in, causing a signal handler to be called,
! -then the signal handler does a fork.  Then, the interrupt handler returns
! -and the right hand getpid() is called.  Voila!
! 
! Anyone who fork()s then returns inside a signal handler deserves to suffer.

Yes, but so what.  The question basically was "Is getpid() != getpid() ever
true."  It was not restricted to what was reasonable or common coding practice,
or sanctioned by the pANS, or your personal preference, or anything else.  It
isn't necessary to say something is a bad idea when that wasn't asked, so I
didn't.
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbnews!lvc or lvc@cbnews.att.com