From owner-freebsd-questions Sat Jun 10 12:16:35 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mega.ist.utl.pt (mega.ist.utl.pt [193.136.128.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39DCB37BD6A for ; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 12:16:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mlsr@mega.ist.utl.pt) Received: by mega.ist.utl.pt (Postfix, from userid 41469) id A4FFC11DF12; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 20:14:45 +0100 (WET DST) To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Where should I send this ? Content-Length: 943 Message-Id: <20000610191445.A4FFC11DF12@mega.ist.utl.pt> Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 20:14:45 +0100 (WET DST) From: mlsr@mega.ist.utl.pt (Miguel Lopes Santos Ramos) Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hello ! There appears to be a mistake in the manpage of rfork(2) in the description for the flag RFMEM used to create a new process sharing the address space of the first we may read the following words: "The stack segment is always split" Well this seems to mean that the kernel creates a new stack for the new process (in the case rfork(RFPROC | RFMEM)) but this appears not to be the case... apparently the user must create the stack for the new process himself, and if this is not done the new process is obviously terminated with SIGSEGV... if this is true (which I am obviously not sure, it is possible that something escapes me...) what should read in the manpage would be "Unless RFPPWAIT is also specified, a new stack segment must be created by the child process immediatly after the call." Tell me something about this... If there is a better mailing list for the discution of this, tell me Miguel Ramos, mlsr@mega.ist.utl.pt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message