Re: Practice of using fork()
From: Barry Margolin (barmar_at_alum.mit.edu)
Date: 07/22/05
- Next message: David Schwartz: "Re: Practice of using fork()"
- Previous message: joe_at_invalid.address: "Re: Practice of using fork()"
- In reply to: joe_at_invalid.address: "Re: Practice of using fork()"
- Next in thread: joe_at_invalid.address: "Re: Practice of using fork()"
- Reply: joe_at_invalid.address: "Re: Practice of using fork()"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 21:31:39 -0400
In article <m3irz3k5q0.fsf@localhost.localdomain>, joe@invalid.address
wrote:
> Surely you can, if you know what to do first. It's perfectly
> reasonable to call fork() without calling exec(), and do some pretty
> non-trivial stuff. The trick is knowing how things work on the
> platform being used. That could be said of most things in
> programming.
The problem is that it can be difficult to perform this trick, since the
issues that have been brought up are almost universally undocumented.
As a result, they're also subject to change from release to release.
Furthermore, POSIX programming is supposed to be portable. Does POSIX
ever suggest that there's a problem calling any of these functions
across forks? This is a pretty annoying gotcha.
-- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
- Next message: David Schwartz: "Re: Practice of using fork()"
- Previous message: joe_at_invalid.address: "Re: Practice of using fork()"
- In reply to: joe_at_invalid.address: "Re: Practice of using fork()"
- Next in thread: joe_at_invalid.address: "Re: Practice of using fork()"
- Reply: joe_at_invalid.address: "Re: Practice of using fork()"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|