lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Nov]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:54    [W:0.065 / U:1.792 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site