Messages in this thread | | | Date | 21 Mar 2000 14:0:43 +0100 | From | "Rask Ingemann Lambertsen" <> | Subject | Re: Overcommitable memory?? |
| |
Den 19-Mar-00 03:54:17 skrev Jesse Pollard følgende om "Re: Overcommitable memory??":
> vfork is one way to do this. It has been rejected, parially I believe, > because it didn't get included in various standards - vfork itself is a BSD > base, and I haven't seen it in anything else. For most purposes, fork is > equivalent. The other reason is that most applications do not implement/use > vfork since it wasn't part of the majority of UNIX versions. This made > portability of vfork an issue with applications. Since fork accomplished the > same thing, it was used.
GNU AutoConf deals with it easily, just as it does with a number of other portability issues.
Regards,
/¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯T¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯\ | Rask Ingemann Lambertsen | E-mail: mailto:rask@kampsax.dtu.dk | | Please do NOT Cc: to me or the | WWW: http://www.gbar.dtu.dk/~c948374/ | | mailing list. I am on the list.| "ThrustMe" on XPilot, ARCnet and IRC | | Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it still exists. |
- 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/
| |