From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Jul 14 20:26:43 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA04464 for freebsd-questions-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 20:26:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mail.camalott.com (root@mail.camalott.com [208.203.140.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA04459 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 20:26:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from joelh@gnu.org) Received: from detlev.UUCP (tex-112.camalott.com [208.229.74.112]) by mail.camalott.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA17157; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 22:27:18 -0500 Received: (from joelh@localhost) by detlev.UUCP (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA08056; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 22:26:30 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from joelh) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 22:26:30 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <199807150326.WAA08056@detlev.UUCP> To: Subject: Old vfork bug-- still exist? From: Joel Ray Holveck Reply-to: joelh@gnu.org Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Emacs is presently configured to use fork instead of vfork. This is because of a kernel bug that existed at least as of 04Feb96: /* Needed to avoid hanging when child process writes an error message and exits -- enami tsugutomo . */ #define vfork fork I don't really know what it's talking about, so I can't test to see if the bug still exists. Since NetBSD fixed the bug by 21Feb96, I would assume that we have as well. Can anybody confirm this? Is fork now as efficient as vfork anyway? Thanks, joelh -- Joel Ray Holveck - joelh@gnu.org - http://www.wp.com/piquan Fourth law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi sendmail: segmentation violation - core dumped To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message