From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed May 21 10:45:59 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA23761
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 21 May 1997 10:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cypher.net (black@zen.pratt.edu [205.232.115.155])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA23741
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 21 May 1997 10:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from black@localhost) by cypher.net (8.8.5/8.7.1) id NAA00871; Wed, 21 May 1997 13:09:04 -0400
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 13:09:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ben Black <black@zen.cypher.net>
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
cc: terry@lambert.org, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: pure /proc ps?
In-Reply-To: <199705211743.KAA03570@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970521130833.17872P-100000@zen.cypher.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

can't it just skip the non-/proc parts if it doesn't have the offending 
options ont he command line?

On Wed, 21 May 1997, Terry Lambert wrote:

> > > > is there any hope of a pure /proc ps on freebsd?
> > >
> > > Not as long as "-M core", "-N system", and "-W swap" exist to allow
> > > running ps against system-dump images.
> >
> > so why does ps try to access anything other than /proc when i *don't* use 
> > those options?
> 
> So that it's not twice as large as it would otherwise be for containing
> two seperate copies of the data lookup code.
> 
> 
> 					Terry Lambert
> 					terry@lambert.org
> ---
> Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
> or previous employers.
>