>--[Russ Allbery]--<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[Yes, I do read the mailing lists I'm writing to. I even set a
Mail-Followup-To:]
> > The key question here is, if a program requires fork(), would it
> > normally work with Amiga's vfork()? My guess is no, so this patch would
> > not be correct.
No, it wouldn't. If you somehow need a "real" fork(), call a wizard and let
him do his tricks. Unfortunately, the only wizards left won't share their
knowledge, and the only way to get patches into the GeekGadgets CVS is to
ask upstream... Anyway, if you can't replace it, there's manual work to do.
> I like the idea of testing for fork() and making sure it works.
:-)
> The only part I disagree with is the #define of fork to vfork. The latest
> version appears to correct that, so I think the patch is now reasonable.
I changed it because I realized that sometimes it is better to let a fork
fail than to accidently do an unjustified vfork that might just crash.
> If you're only using fork to spawn processes, you can check for HAVE_FORK
> and HAVE_VFORK and use vfork instead.
Yepp... just tell everybody :-)
Yours, Rüdiger.
--
A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a
"Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
-- Mahatma Ghandi
