Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 09:46:30 -0800 From: "Scott Hess" <scott@avantgo.com> To: "Ronald G. Minnich" <rminnich@lanl.gov>, <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: rfork() [was: Concept check] Message-ID: <24d101bf5d24$f54cf350$1e80000a@avantgo.com> References: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0001120804000.5879-100000@mini.acl.lanl.gov>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ronald G. Minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov> wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Alexander Litvin wrote: > > Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> wrote: > > > :BTW, concerning rfork(RFMEM). Could somebody explain me, why the > > > :following simple program is coredumping: > > > You cannot call rfork() with RFMEM directly from a C program. You > > > have to use assembly (has anyone created a native clone() call yet > > > to do all the hard work?). > > OK, I'd like to propose another option to rfork to make it a little more > usable for mortals. The option is RFSTACK. This will cause rfork to work > like my original version, in that the stack segment (all memory from > USERSTACK and up) will be cloned. > > This would really make a big improvement in rfork usability. > > Comments? That sounds like an _excellent_ suggestion, for general usage. OTOH, it probably wouldn't be useful for building threading libraries, threads couldn't see each other's stacks. A libc version of clone() would probably be more useful, or perhaps an rfork() option which caused it to create a new stack segment which both processes would see (not much different from clone in that case). Later, scott To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?24d101bf5d24$f54cf350$1e80000a>