home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!darwin.sura.net!mlb.semi.harris.com!dave.mis.semi.harris.com!dbrillha
- From: dbrillha@dave.mis.semi.harris.com (Dave Brillhart)
- Subject: Re: Threads quotation (Re: A question on style ...)
- References: <MJN.92Aug9001716@pseudo.uucp> <1301@uknet.ac.uk> <1992Aug10.155204.24107@vaxeline.ftp.com> <1304@uknet.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 13:18:54 GMT
- Nntp-Posting-Host: dave.mis.semi.harris.com
- Reply-To: dbrillha@dave.mis.semi.harris.com (Dave Brillhart)
- Organization: Harris Semiconductor
- Sender: news@mlb.semi.harris.com
- Message-ID: <1992Aug12.131854.27984@mlb.semi.harris.com>
- Lines: 23
-
- Tim Goodwin writes:
-
- >Anyway, my interpretation of this comment is that UNIX processes
- >originally *were* "light weight", and the current vogue for putting
- >threads inside UNIX processes illustrates how far we have strayed from
- >the minimalist path.
-
- "Classic" UNIX processes are by definition *not light weight*. Although
- I've never used LWPs, I believe they are called LW because they don't
- carry around all the baggage of a "classic" process (additional kernel
- tables, ...) and operate within the address space of the parent.
-
- >This has nothing to do with C. Followups to comp.unix.programmer.
-
- But it does have everything to do with UNIX.PROGRAMMING.
-
- --
- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
- Dave Brillhart Harris Semiconductor
- dbrillha@dave.mis.semi.harris.com Mail Stop 62A-024
- Voice: (407) 729-5430 P.O. Box 883
- Fax: (407) 724-7486 Melbourne, FL 32902-0883
- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-