>Unfortunately, NO. Thit is not a correct answer, see below.
>I went through the same thing, when we first implemented UNIX >System Services. This is z/OS's (previously ESA 5.2 & OS/390) method >of emulating the UNIX fork of a process. >A spawn is even 'worse', since the originating address space >goes away. fork() and spawn() both create a new process. Whether the parent process goes way or not is solely dependent on the code that follows the fork() or spawn() in the parent process. Some will terminate some will not. This is pure UNIX design and works this was on any UNIX flavour. z/OS normally uses a new address space for a new process, but has a "performance option" built into spawn() that offers the possibility to share a single address space between the parent and the child (or multiple children). Note that I wrote "possibility", which implies that there are cases where parent and child may not share the address space (see the z/OS UNIX manuals as well as the z/OS XL C/C++ Runtime Library Reference for details). Note that fork() always creates the child in a new address space. As for BPXBATCH, this normally uses spawn() but does a fork() in some cases. When it does a spawn() the current value of _BPX_SHAREAS influences how spawn() creates the new process. If _BPX_SHAREAS is set to either YES or MUST, then spwan() will *try* to create a local process, i.e. it will try to use the current address space. *But* limitations may inhibit the use of the current address space (see manuals mentioned above). BPXBATSL is the same program as BPXBATCH, only that if called by this name it internally sets _BPX_SHARESA=MUST for the duration of the spawn(). -- Peter Hunkeler Credit Suisse ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
