lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Nov]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:1.394 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site