On 07/12/10 13:39, Dan Mick wrote:
Thank you for the bla()'s. That really added to my understanding.On 07/12/10 05:05 AM, ольга крыжановская wrote:I don't want spawn(2), I want posix_spawn(2). The last is more powerful and would reduce the number of system calls, possibilities for race conditions and execute faster than the bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), bla(), vfork(), exec() applications and shells have to use today. Olga
In fact, I'd like to suggest that those complaining that their suggestions aren't being pursued pay attention to my sig line,
and start using Mercurial, their favorite text editor and Make and try out some of these ideas themselves. If you have a greatidea to improve performance, try implementing and measuring the results yourself rather than complaining about no one jumping up to implement
your latest ideas. A single working patch speaks louder than a thousand emailed suggestions. - Bart -- Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance bart.smaald...@oracle.com http://blogs.sun.com/barts "You will contribute more with mercurial than with thunderbird." _______________________________________________ on-discuss mailing list on-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/on-discuss
