Message-Id:	<200102271856.NAA26673@qnx.com>
Subject:	Re: fork, pipe
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:55:57 -0500 (EST)
From:	"Alain Magloire" <alain AT qnx DOT com>
In-Reply-To:	<15003.60532.423412.282631@honolulu.ilog.fr> from "Bruno Haible" at Feb 27, 2001 07:05:40 PM
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.5 PL0b1]
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> 
> Tim Van Holder writes:
> 
> > Yes - but that pertains to the decision to support DOS/Windows in the
> > first place.  Also, it refers to the system in the sense of the available
> > libc functions.  For example, DOS has no fork() or pipe(), so programs
> > that require them would require extensive rewiring to work on DOS.
> 
> Modern Unix programs use 'posix_spawn' (declared in <spawn.h>) instead
> of fork/exec when possible. I hope DJGPP implements this facility.

IIRC, spawn() never made into POSIX96, it was proposed and part of
the earlier drafts but drop.  Our commitee member here told me that
posix_spawn() is part of the Austin drafts but with different semantics
then the one propose by QNX(*) which was more similar to what is implemented
in DJGPP.

So GNU libc may have supports for it, since they track POSIX more
closely.  But I doubt any modern Unix as a spawn() nor a posix_spawn().

On some system like QNX4 or Neutrino, spawn() maybe more efficient then fork().

(*): my facts maybe wrong here

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

- Raw text -