Subject: RE: fork2
From: [email-masked] (Sergey Okhapkin)

17 Nov 1997 01:14:22 -0800
Message-ID: <01BCF2A1.A5AF0B20.cygnus.gnu-win32@sos>
To: "'Jason Zions'" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]'" <[email-masked]>

Jason Zions wrote:
>
> Or you could use OpenNT from Softway Systems which gives you a real,
> honest, fully-conforming, fork(). Not to mention the rest of POSIX.1,

>
> That's a shame. You can have both; you just need the right technology.
>

I've tried this "right technology"... cc as a front-end to cl fools all 
configure scripts. I couldn't find on Softway's ftp site fixed cc 
(mentioned in technote) :-( OK, I downloaded from softway web site gcc 
(it's cygnus gcc, btw :-) and tried to make bash 2.01. Configure runs fine 
(and rightly), I made a small changes in bash sources to conform OpenNT 
libraries (*sigh*), make passed. Bash just traps on start-up with 
segmentation violation message... "Hello, World" works fine :-)

BTW, fork() in OpenNT 2.0 is excellent! It's not fast like on unix systems, 
but it takes no processor resources like on cygwin. The simpliest program - 
fork() in a loop and wait for a child, child just exits immediately - runs 
much faster than on cygwin and with almost zero processor load! It's very 
interesting for me - why processor load is 0? What the computer does at 
this time?-)

Unfortunately, I can't continue to play with OpenNT - the demo key is 
expired now:-) BTW, do you know, that cygwin passes most of tests of NIST 
Posix Conformance Test Suite?-)

--
Sergey Okhapkin, http://www.lexa.ru/sos
Moscow, Russia
Looking for a job

-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".