Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1999/04/15/02:46:33
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET) wrote:
> Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de> replied:
> > On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET) wrote:
> > Answer in a nutshell: there *is* no 'spawn' on Unix (including Linux).
> > spawn and friends are a DOSism.
>
> Ok, so what's the best in this case:
> 1) Add conditional compilation stuff (makes the code harder to understand)
> 2) Implement spawn and make it conditional (taked from libc in DOS or the
> emulation under Linux).
You could do that. But I strongly doubt you'ld ever manage to get the
maintainer of the original Unix version to accept that (s)he has to use a
DOSism like spawn, instead of the 'native' Unix method of fork/exec.
> > > What's that?! he opens the file and unlinks it. Is that supposed to work in
> > > UNIX? I mean: what the program will get from a file that was unliked?
> >
> > A temporary file that doesn't leave any trace of its existence in the file
> > system (unlink deletes only the directory entry, if the inode, i.e. the
[...]
> Looks like it was accident, so then UNIX will release the space when the
> file is closed?
Yes, it will, as it keeps a 'number of opened handles' as part of the
inode. Once that's zero (and no directory entry points to the inode,
either), the file is deleted. And no, it's not an accident. It seems to
be kind of a standard method under Unix.
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.
- Raw text -