Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 14:53:49 +0400 (MSD) From: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, CVS-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-usrbin@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/vacation vacation.c Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970424145040.592A-100000@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <199704240959.TAA12833@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 24 Apr 1997, Bruce Evans wrote: > I think it's better to use fork() except in programs that fork a lot. > Even the simplest use: > > if ((pid = vfork()) == 0) > execl(...); > > is not guaranteed to work (it depends on there being a stack frame and > the compiler not doing anything unusual with it). I think that vfork() must be supported by compiler instead. So, right now we already have some sort of this support by default based on current gcc behaviour. If this behaviour will be changed (more general case you speak about), such compiler must support vfork especially, i.e. not cross-optimizing, keeping stack frame, etc. -- Andrey A. Chernov <ache@null.net> http://www.nagual.pp.ru/~ache/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.970424145040.592A-100000>