From:	Alain Magloire <alainm AT rcsm DOT ece DOT mcgill DOT ca>
Message-Id:	<199902262327.SAA11493@mccoy2.ECE.McGill.CA>
Subject:	Re: inetutils
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Fri, 26 Feb 1999 18:27:14 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Bonjour

[Sorry for being so late in the thread, I didn't realize that I made
 a typo when subscribing ]
 
: > BTW, this merely a suggestion, I have no idea how spawn is implemented.
: 
: unfortunately, spawn() is a sort-of standard, so we can't go around
: changing the parameters.  If you're trying to implement fork(), you'll
: need to do the dup() in your fork code.

I don't have POSIX.1g at end to see the rationale but it seems, to me,
that spawning without being able to redirect the file descriptor
of the child, restrict the utility of spawn().

: 
: > - When I spawn(), the parent goes on to its business right ?
: 
: No.  DJGPP doesn't allow concurrent processing.  The parent waits
: until the child exits.
: 
: > You kinda hinted that It may not be the case witout
: > something call "start /m".
: 
: Windows supports concurrent processing, but dos (djgpp) doesn't.

So in other words, you're saying, it is not possible to port
the inetutils servers, that rely on the operating system to provide
some sort of multitasking via the system calls(fork/spwan,...).
However it is possible to do it on Windows but not with djgpp framework ?

-- 
au revoir, alain
----
Aussi haut que l'on soit assis, on est toujours assis que sur son cul !!!

- Raw text -