On Monday 02 March 2009 03:25:01 Michael Schnell wrote: > > Also, > > code which depends on vfork behaviour isn't portable except for a few > > things which are allowed. > > What do you mean by "portable" ? Is the vfork() behavior not well > defined across different archs ? Or do you mean not portable to archs > that do have fork(). If so, why not continue to use vfork() ? Or do > these archs just map vfork() to fork() and thus ignore the > vfork-specialties (e.g. that the parent is blocked until the child does > *exec() or *exit() ) ?
all documentation on vfork() is very clear: the only thing you can rely on portably after a vfork() is to call _exit() or an exec() function. if you restrict your code to Linux only, then vfork() should behave exactly the same regardless of arch and regardless of MMU usage. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
