Re: Overcommitable memory??

From: Rask Ingemann Lambertsen (rask-linux@kampsax.k-net.dk)
Date: Tue Mar 21 2000 - 08:00:43 EST


Den 19-Mar-00 03:54:17 skrev Jesse Pollard fĝlgende om "Re: Overcommitable memory??":

> vfork is one way to do this. It has been rejected, parially I believe,
> because it didn't get included in various standards - vfork itself is a BSD
> base, and I haven't seen it in anything else. For most purposes, fork is
> equivalent. The other reason is that most applications do not implement/use
> vfork since it wasn't part of the majority of UNIX versions. This made
> portability of vfork an issue with applications. Since fork accomplished the
> same thing, it was used.

   GNU AutoConf deals with it easily, just as it does with a number of
other portability issues.

Regards,

/ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻTŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ\
| Rask Ingemann Lambertsen | E-mail: mailto:rask@kampsax.dtu.dk |
| Please do NOT Cc: to me or the | WWW: http://www.gbar.dtu.dk/~c948374/ |
| mailing list. I am on the list.| "ThrustMe" on XPilot, ARCnet and IRC |
| Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it still exists. |

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 21:00:32 EST