Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 16 Nov 1999 00:19:22 +0000 | From | Dancer <> | Subject | Re: vfork |
| |
Kai Henningsen wrote: > > acahalan@cs.uml.edu (Albert D. Cahalan) wrote on 10.11.99 in <199911100713.CAA31619@jupiter.cs.uml.edu>: > > > Andries Brouwer writes: > > > > > Linus writes: > > > > > > Just describe it the way it works. > > > > > > Yes, I did that further down the same page, describing the BSD vfork > > > and the reasons for it. But the POSIX description is what programmers > > > that wish to produce portable programs have to use. In a portable > > > program vfork only has disadvantages - strictly speaking it cannot be > > > used at all. Maybe I should add a separate LINUX DESCRIPTION. > > > > These are Linux man pages, are they not? > > So? > > When I look at a man page, *at least* 50% of the time I'd like to know if > this is in any way Linux specific (and if so, in what way), and what > exactly are the portable properties. > > I may then decide to rely on non-portable properties, if those make a > significant difference to what I'm trying to do.
Traditionally, unix man pages (or at least the ones that _used_ to come with GNU/Linux systems) have had a 'portability' or 'compatibility' section that gave information about POSIX compliance, whether the feature was linux-specific, specific to linux and BSD, or whatever.
I've always felt that to be comfortable and useful...I could always look up a function and know what sort of mess I was going to get myself into as regards portability.
D
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |