From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 08:42:08 +0000 From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" Message-ID: <46DEE273.243B2292@null.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <46DDB9AD.DF4673BE@null.net>, Subject: Re: [9fans] plan 9 overcommits memory? Topicbox-Message-UUID: b8f670aa-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 erik quanstrom wrote: > > That's why many OSes have a "spawn" primitive that combines fork-and-exec. > the problem with spawn is it requires a mechanism to replace that little > block of code between the fork and exec. that code is hardly ever the > same so spawn keeps growing arguments. Yes, on the other hand I bet a spawn interface could be devised that is sufficiently programmable. (May require some extra dup()s etc. to really handle all the common usage patterns.)