From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <23F46ED5-A8A6-4677-A01E-6CF1BCC51C7D@ar.aichi-u.ac.jp> References: <23F46ED5-A8A6-4677-A01E-6CF1BCC51C7D@ar.aichi-u.ac.jp> From: minux Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 23:57:59 -0500 Message-ID: To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [9fans] bug in rc(1) ? Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2efa7476-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 11:42 PM, arisawa 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