From fnaumann@mail.cs.uni-magdeburg.de Fri Jan 30 21:23:06 2004 Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 21:13:09 +0100 (CET) From: Frank Naumann X-X-Sender: fnaumann@wh58-508.st.uni-magdeburg.de To: mint@fishpool.com Subject: Re: [MiNT] fVDI issues In-Reply-To: <0c0301c3e767$a9d60890$0e0a63d9@blaszak> Message-ID: References: <20040122144133.GC17739@haddock.cd.chalmers.se> <20040123191858.GA28238@haddock.cd.chalmers.se> <20040124160439.GA24271@haddock.cd.chalmers.se> <035f01c3e333$a67d1b80$0e0a63d9@blaszak> <03d701c3e4af$accb24f0$0e0a63d9@blaszak> <1075193841.3713.14.camel@joy.sophics> <07ba01c3e58b$26865ae0$0e0a63d9@blaszak> <20040128184741.Y99259@antyk.obta.uw.edu.pl> <092f01c3e675$8cf8bee0$0e0a63d9@blaszak> <0a3701c3e69a$38f6db40$0e0a63d9@blaszak> <0c0301c3e767$a9d60890$0e0a63d9@blaszak> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: -4.9 (----) X-Spam-Report: ---- Start SpamAssassin results -4.9 points, 5.0 required; -4.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] ---- End of SpamAssassin results X-Scan-Signature: 61705ef204a653e11bf724774e03a2ff Delivered-To: mint@fishpool.com Delivered-To: mint@lists.fishpool.fi X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: fnaumann@cs.uni-magdeburg.de Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-ID: X-List-ID: Hello! > > Btw. this is an interesting question in general. What is the right > > behaviour if an AES process fork? And is an AES process allowed to > > fork? > > Yes and no, I suppose. AFAIK fork() is allowed for any process, regardless > of what libraries or system functions it uses. At the other hand, Atari > programmers, while designing their multitasking AES 4.0 probably didn't > think/know, that MultiTOS is supposed to have Pfork(). And what do you think is the right behaviour? Ciao ...Frank -- ATARI FALCON 040 // MILAN 060 ----------------------------------------- http://www.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~fnaumann/ e-Mail: fnaumann@freemint.de