[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [autoconf] AmigaOS fork()

From: Rüdiger Kuhlmann
Subject: Re: [autoconf] AmigaOS fork()
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:29:17 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.18i

>--[Alexandre Oliva]--<address@hidden>
> On Jun 13, 2001, Rüdiger Kuhlmann <address@hidden> wrote:

> > Wait, I disagree. If there is no fork()
> perhaps we can use a spoon()?  Hmm, no, we have to remember ``there's
> no spoon'' either. :-)


> How about defining our own macro, say ac_fork(), that would be
> #defined to fork(), if available, or vfork() otherwise, and
> ac_vfork(), that would be #defined to vfork() if available, or fork()
> otherwise?  Then, people could still use fork() and vfork() to get
> hard errors in case these functions are not available, and ac_fork()
> and ac_vfork() to tell autoconf ``look, our program will work with
> both fork and vfork, but we'd prefer this over that in case both are
> available.''

I guess you know _I_ agree, but "the others" don't seem so. So what about
someone checks in my latest patch as the least common denominator, and then,
when everyone agrees about what you actually want regarding to what #defines
to define, we do a second patch? I don't have CVS write access, by the way.

Yours, Rüdiger.

A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a
"Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
                -- Mahatma Ghandi

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]