bug in vfork semantics under IRIX 3.3.1

[Doctor Software]

In article <1990Dec3.024237.23749 at twinsun.com>, eggert at twinsun.com (Paul
Eggert) writes:
> ...
> If SGI wants to make it easy to port software to their machines,
> IRIX should have either a working vfork(), or no vfork() at all.
> 
> 
> 	The entire computer industry would grind to a halt if every company
> 	tried to make sure it only shipped "documented" entry points to it's
> 	libraries.
> 
> If IRIX's vfork() is indeed just an undocumented library entry point that has
> nothing to do with BSD's vfork(), then it should be given a different name.

You're right of course on both counts. The solution has already started
to work it's way through the mill out here ...

-- Jim Barton
   Silicon Graphics Computer Systems
   jmb at sgi.com