From owner-cvs-usrbin Fri Apr 25 04:39:59 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA09368 for cvs-usrbin-outgoing; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 04:39:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.crl.com (mail.crl.com [165.113.1.22]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA09325; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 04:38:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nagual.pp.ru (ache.relcom.ru) by mail.crl.com with SMTP id AA08203 (5.65c/IDA-1.5); Fri, 25 Apr 1997 04:30:11 -0700 Received: (from ache@localhost) by nagual.pp.ru (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA00598; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 14:53:53 +0400 (MSD) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 14:53:49 +0400 (MSD) From: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= To: Bruce Evans Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, CVS-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-usrbin@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/vacation vacation.c In-Reply-To: <199704240959.TAA12833@godzilla.zeta.org.au> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-cvs-usrbin@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 24 Apr 1997, Bruce Evans wrote: > I think it's better to use fork() except in programs that fork a lot. > Even the simplest use: > > if ((pid = vfork()) == 0) > execl(...); > > is not guaranteed to work (it depends on there being a stack frame and > the compiler not doing anything unusual with it). I think that vfork() must be supported by compiler instead. So, right now we already have some sort of this support by default based on current gcc behaviour. If this behaviour will be changed (more general case you speak about), such compiler must support vfork especially, i.e. not cross-optimizing, keeping stack frame, etc. -- Andrey A. Chernov http://www.nagual.pp.ru/~ache/