Also,
code which depends on vfork behaviour isn't portable except for a few
things which are allowed.
What do you mean by "portable" ? Is the vfork() behavior not well
defined across different archs ? Or do you mean not portable to archs
that do have fork(). If so, why not continue to use vfork() ? Or do
these archs just map vfork() to fork() and thus ignore the
vfork-specialties (e.g. that the parent is blocked until the child does
*exec() or *exit() ) ?
-Michael
_______________________________________________
uClinux-dev mailing list
uClinux-dev@uclinux.org
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev
This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org
To unsubscribe see:
http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
