MMU-less systems and vfork

ruby-talk
1

Perhaps adding Process.vfork to core Ruby wouldn't be such a bad idea.
In Perl, I believe you can optionally add vfork support during the
configure phase. Maybe Ruby should consider a similar approach.

Regards,

Dan

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Mitchell [mailto:binary42@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 7:48 PM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: MMU-less systems and vfork.

On 5/4/05, Tim Sutherland <timsuth@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> In article <fcfe417005050220583afb4f37@mail.gmail.com>,
Brian Mitchell
> wrote: [...]
> >My question was: Will ruby still run when fork is not available
> >(replacing fork with vfork or cutting out fork). The quick
answer is
> >no.
> [...]
>
> The usual build of Ruby on Windows does not use fork - Ruby
does not
> require fork to operate.
>
> If everything goes well, ./configure will notice that fork isn't
> available, and will not set HAVE_FORK in config.h.

This is what I needed to know. thanks. I should have looked
harder but my tinker time on this is limited. I do not yet
have my toolchain completely done yet but I should be able to
test this setting. BTW, I did get it partially working with
certain forms of fork (vfork implementation swapped in) but
as was said and as I knew, vfork is quite an different beast
but does the trick in some cases.

Now to figure out if I can slim it down anymore than using
the right compiler flags.

Thanks,
Brian.

2

Hi,

At Thu, 5 May 2005 23:31:12 +0900,
Berger, Daniel wrote in [ruby-talk:141223]:

Perhaps adding Process.vfork to core Ruby wouldn't be such a bad idea.
In Perl, I believe you can optionally add vfork support during the
configure phase. Maybe Ruby should consider a similar approach.

Using vfork() resulted SEGV, so it's been replaced with fork().

···

--
Nobu Nakada