From: sos AT prospect DOT com DOT ru (Sergey Okhapkin) Subject: RE: fork2 17 Nov 1997 01:14:22 -0800 Message-ID: <01BCF2A1.A5AF0B20.cygnus.gnu-win32@sos> To: "'Jason Zions'" Cc: "'gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com'" 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 "gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".