On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 07:42:47PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:07:55 +0200 > > This leads to four(!) different cases: > > [...] > > * fork(), that should be a fork() if possible, but if not available, > > a vfork() should do the job as well > > I don't see why this case would ever happen in real code. Something which you'd prefer to have happen in parallel if possible, but if it's not possible, then sequential is ok. "Make" firing off a bunch of compilations, for example. -- | | /\ |-_|/ > Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | / With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea. - RFC 1925 (quoting an unnamed source)
- Re: [autoconf] AmigaOS fork() Eric Siegerman
- Re: [autoconf] AmigaOS fork() Paul Eggert
- Re: [autoconf] AmigaOS fork() Rüdiger Kuhlmann
- Re: [autoconf] AmigaOS fork() Paul Eggert
- Re: [autoconf] AmigaOS fork() Paul Eggert
- Re: [autoconf] AmigaOS fork() Thomas Dickey
- Re: [autoconf] AmigaOS fork() Rüdiger Kuhlmann
- Re: [autoconf] AmigaOS fork() Paul Eggert
- Re: [autoconf] AmigaOS fork() Paul D. Smith
- Re: [autoconf] AmigaOS fork() Eric Siegerman
- Re: [autoconf] AmigaOS fork() Eric Siegerman
- Re: [autoconf] AmigaOS fork() Paul Eggert
- Re: [autoconf] AmigaOS fork() Eric Siegerman
- Re: [autoconf] AmigaOS fork() Rüdiger Kuhlmann
- Re: [autoconf] AmigaOS fork() Paul Eggert
- Re: [autoconf] AmigaOS fork() Rüdiger Kuhlmann
- Re: [autoconf] AmigaOS fork() Alexandre Oliva
- Re: [autoconf] AmigaOS fork() Rüdiger Kuhlmann
- Re: [autoconf] AmigaOS fork() Paul Eggert
- Re: [autoconf] AmigaOS fork() Eric Siegerman
- Re: [autoconf] AmigaOS fork() Akim Demaille