Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 03 Nov 1999 13:42:00 +0000 | From | dancer@zeor ... | Subject | Re: vfork |
| |
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" wrote:
> Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 01:46:00 +0000 > From: dancer@zeor.simegen.com > > Concur, all round. However, we've now had 'vfork() == fork()' being > generally advertised for some time. I know programmers, therefore > (many of whom I'd not care to share an office with, but that's > another thing entirely) who reflexively have used vfork() everywhere > 'because it's the same as fork, but might be better than fork one > day'. > > Agreed, but that's silly. [snip] > However, if they use vfork() like fork() in some situation where BSD 4.3 > vfork() would break, on the vague assumption that vfork() will change in > some way that's better-but-without-any-of-the-limitations-of-old-vfork, > they're just being stupid, and they deserve everything they get. > > Post _big_ warnings. Some things will break. Things that should have been > written differently to begin with, mind you. > > Sigh.... too bad we can't give programmers electric shocks each time > they pull such wild leaps of illogic.
Agreed. I'm willing to hold an electrode, if it comes to that.
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/
| |