i couldn't find the references to vfork i was looking for quickly with google; they were lost in vast arguments about vfork bugs.
- erik On Sat Aug 12 14:54:40 CDT 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I always thought vfork was introduced because > > copy-on-write hadn't been invented yet. > > > > It's the only logical explanation. > > no, it was because they chose not to implement copy on write. > it had been invented long before that. > in fact, i found copy on write at least as easy to do for unix > as the grunge required for vfork (and it was more generally useful). > on some architectures you need to use copy on reference. > their paging data structures might have made it more difficult, i suppose; > they had them upside down compared to unix's requirements. > > vfork also was specified so that if you relied on the sharing > except to implement a non-sharing fork, the effect was undefined.
