On 17:13 13 Jan 2002, Alexander Kotelnikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | >> BTW, I was surprised finding out fvwm use fork instead of vfork for | >> Exec. There is a note about that not all platforms support vfork butwe | >> can easily check it in configure time.
Or just stay the hell away from it. It's evil. Even the BSD man pages (where it originated) said it was a temporary kludge until they had fork() being more efficient, which it is on all modern systems. | Dmitry> vfork() is a disaster and shouldn't be used. For a historic | Dmitry> description, read the Linux manpage for vfork(2), especially the 2nd | Dmitry> paragraph in the BUGS section. | | both setpgrp and vfork are *standard*, if the implemented or not. But I | have to admit that vfork hurts me badly on Debian unstable. And in what standard is vfork() specified? AFAIK, none, because it's an ugly kludge. Now fork(), _that's_ standard. Maybe you meant "common". -- Cameron Simpson, DoD#743 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zip.com.au/~cs/ It is the cunning of form to veil itself continually in the evidence of content. It is the cunning of the code to veil itself and to produce itself in the obviousness of value. - Baudrillard -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
