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" 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Precedence: bulk > > 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 ) 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 !!!