3 ms·

I was trying to find a year on it and couldn’t, but agree it seems newer. FWIW, it’s not required to be able to run any setup code in the child to do arbitrary

I was trying to find a year on it and couldn’t, but agree it seems newer. FWIW, it’s not required to be able to run any setup code in the child to do arbitrary setup. For instance, WinNT makes that very hard, but has a larger syscall interface to compensate, so it’s actually more general. An alternate design of running all code in the parent can be made work if the kernel supports passing a pid handle to every syscall: https://lwn.net/Articles/360747/ https://lwn.net/Articles/360747/ On the other hand, this is perhaps a bit more complex in some ways? or at least just different.

cesarb 7y ago
> I was trying to find a year on it and couldn’t, but agree it seems newer. http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/posix_spawn.3.html#CONFORMING_TO http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/posix_spawn.3.html#CONF... says POSIX.1-2001, so I'm guessing between 1998 and 2002 (according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification#2001:_Single_UNIX_Specification_version_3,_POSIX:2001 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification#2001... it started development in 1998 and was released in 2002). That man page also says "since glibc 2.2", which according to Wikipedia was released November 2000.
chrisseaton 7y ago
Seems newer? Fork predates the whole idea of POSIX by decades, let alone the particular API posix_spawn.