Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: ReadKey like Function in C Message-ID: <10750@smoke.BRL.MIL> Date: 16 Aug 89 04:40:54 GMT References: <148@trigon.UUCP> <207600029@s.cs.uiuc.edu> <941@lakesys.UUCP> <10734@smoke.BRL.MIL> <5692@ficc.uu.net> Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD. Lines: 23 In article <5692@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >Fork() is just plain inefficient unless you have virtual memory support, >so few small-system or real-time operating systems use it or even support it. Funny how we didn't think it was a big problem on PDP-11 UNIX. The "small systems" you mention today have more inherent power than those PDP-11s; the problem seems to be that convenient means of exploiting the power are not being provided. Real-time has nothing to do with it. >> >While I'm here, what's the sentiment among C standards folks for some sort >> >of standard co-routine arrangement? >> It cannot be mandated across all implementations. >Well, the flip response to this is: "Maybe, but then neither can fork().", >and I'm reasonably sure you'll use that in your code. Only if the application is deliberately constrained to POSIX implementations. I don't use fork() gratuitously. >It seems to me that there is a need for something between X3J11 and POSIX. Feel free.