[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Is fork() broken in octave 5.1 ?
|
From: |
Mike Miller |
|
Subject: |
Re: Is fork() broken in octave 5.1 ? |
|
Date: |
Thu, 26 Sep 2019 10:42:33 -0700 |
|
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) |
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 19:27:55 +0200, Kay Nick wrote:
> Nevertheless I find this behavior not intuitive... What is the reason
> for preventing fork() from being used in a simple script?
It is related to this (still open) bug report:
https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?45625
--
mike
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- Switch to std::atomic?, Rik, 2019/09/13
- Re: Switch to std::atomic?, John W. Eaton, 2019/09/25
- Re: Switch to std::atomic?, John W. Eaton, 2019/09/25
- Is fork() broken in octave 5.1 ?, Kay Nick, 2019/09/26
- Re: Is fork() broken in octave 5.1 ?, Mike Miller, 2019/09/26
- Re: Is fork() broken in octave 5.1 ?, Kay Nick, 2019/09/26
- Re: Is fork() broken in octave 5.1 ?,
Mike Miller <=
- Re: Is fork() broken in octave 5.1 ?, John W. Eaton, 2019/09/26
- Re: Is fork() broken in octave 5.1 ?, Dr. K. nick, 2019/09/27
- Re: Switch to std::atomic?, John W. Eaton, 2019/09/26
- Re: Switch to std::atomic?, Dmitri A. Sergatskov, 2019/09/26
- Re: Switch to std::atomic?, John W. Eaton, 2019/09/27
- Re: Switch to std::atomic?, Rik, 2019/09/26
- Re: Switch to std::atomic?, John W. Eaton, 2019/09/26
- Re: Switch to std::atomic?, Rik, 2019/09/26
- Re: Switch to std::atomic?, John W. Eaton, 2019/09/27
- Re: Switch to std::atomic?, Pantxo, 2019/09/27