Newsgroups: comp.unix.aix
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!raven.alaska.edu!milton!uw-beaver!cornell!batcomputer!theory.TC.Cornell.EDU!shore
From: shore@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: vfork() (was Re: RS6000 questions/comments)
Message-ID: <1991Jun29.170514.12627@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>
Sender: news@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: theory.tc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
References: <351@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> <1991Jun29.072930.24674@kithrup.COM> <DERAADT.91Jun29025758@fsa.cpsc.ucalgary.ca>
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1991 17:05:14 GMT

In article <DERAADT.91Jun29025758@fsa.cpsc.ucalgary.ca> deraadt@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Theo de Raadt) writes:
>Sean, I'm disapointed in you.

[ code deleted ]

>That's the way that stdio works.

Yes, it is, but that isn't what's being discussed.  After a vfork, both
processes are sharing the same address space and data structures.  One
process can change the contents of a data structure without informing
the other, in the absence of an agreed-upon locking mechanism.  Do you
*really* want one process free()-ing all the FILE * out from under the
other process?

Fork works differently, of course, because the two processes are
(logically) not sharing the same address space.
-- 
                  Software longa, hardware brevis
Melinda Shore - Cornell Information Technologies - shore@tc.cornell.edu
