9fans - fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [9fans] bug in rc(1) ?
@ 2014-11-29  4:42 arisawa
  2014-11-29  4:57 ` minux
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: arisawa @ 2014-11-29  4:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

rc(1) says:

          rfork [nNeEsfFm]
               Become a new process group using rfork(flags) where
               flags is composed of the bitwise OR of the rfork flags
               specified by the option letters (see fork(2)). If no
               flags are given, they default to ens.  The flags and
               their meanings are: n is RFNAMEG; N is RFCNAMEG; e is
               RFENVG; E is RFCENVG; s is RFNOTEG; f is RFFDG; F is
               RFCFDG; and m is RFNOMNT.

this sounds to me
	rfork
is equivalent to
	rfork ens

or am I misunderstanding?

Kenji Arisawa




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] bug in rc(1) ?
  2014-11-29  4:42 [9fans] bug in rc(1) ? arisawa
@ 2014-11-29  4:57 ` minux
  2014-11-30 10:27   ` arisawa
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: minux @ 2014-11-29  4:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 11:42 PM, arisawa <arisawa@ar.aichi-u.ac.jp> wrote:
> rc(1) says:
>
>           rfork [nNeEsfFm]
>                Become a new process group using rfork(flags) where
>                flags is composed of the bitwise OR of the rfork flags
>                specified by the option letters (see fork(2)). If no
>                flags are given, they default to ens.  The flags and
>                their meanings are: n is RFNAMEG; N is RFCNAMEG; e is
>                RFENVG; E is RFCENVG; s is RFNOTEG; f is RFFDG; F is
>                RFCFDG; and m is RFNOMNT.
>
> this sounds to me
>         rfork
> is equivalent to
>         rfork ens
yes. it also agrees with the source code.
http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sources/plan9/sys/src/cmd/rc/plan9.c:/^execnewpgrp



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] bug in rc(1) ?
  2014-11-29  4:57 ` minux
@ 2014-11-30 10:27   ` arisawa
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: arisawa @ 2014-11-30 10:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

OK, thanks

> 2014/11/29 13:57、minux <minux.ma@gmail.com> のメール：
> 
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 11:42 PM, arisawa <arisawa@ar.aichi-u.ac.jp> wrote:
>> rc(1) says:
>> 
>>          rfork [nNeEsfFm]
>>               Become a new process group using rfork(flags) where
>>               flags is composed of the bitwise OR of the rfork flags
>>               specified by the option letters (see fork(2)). If no
>>               flags are given, they default to ens.  The flags and
>>               their meanings are: n is RFNAMEG; N is RFCNAMEG; e is
>>               RFENVG; E is RFCENVG; s is RFNOTEG; f is RFFDG; F is
>>               RFCFDG; and m is RFNOMNT.
>> 
>> this sounds to me
>>        rfork
>> is equivalent to
>>        rfork ens
> yes. it also agrees with the source code.
> http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sources/plan9/sys/src/cmd/rc/plan9.c:/^execnewpgrp




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-11-30 10:27 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-11-29  4:42 [9fans] bug in rc(1) ? arisawa
2014-11-29  4:57 ` minux
2014-11-30 10:27   ` arisawa

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).