Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 07:30:36 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@orthanc.ca> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: libthread 1:1 threads Message-ID: <426A5C0C.4050700@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <9328DC9EC69D53548F9E444F@peregrin.orthanc.ca> References: <5bbfe7d40504220842578b2d2d@mail.gmail.com> <426953C5.9080502@elischer.org> <5bbfe7d4050422150226c6712d@mail.gmail.com> <9328DC9EC69D53548F9E444F@peregrin.orthanc.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > --On 2005-4-22 3:02 PM -0700 David Leimbach <dleimbac@gmail.com> wrote: > >> According to the man page, and plan 9 where rfork originated you can >> use it to modify an extant process. In fact you have to set the >> RFPROC flag to make a new process or all the changes apply to the >> current one. > > > Unfortunately the semantics of FreeBSD rfork() have diverted far enough > from the original plan9 rfork() such that you can't consider it as the > same call. This makes life miserable for things like running Inferno on > FreeBSD. patches to fix this would probably be accepted.. as long as other functionality wask kept 'available' > > --lyndon > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?426A5C0C.4050700>