From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,789b1b7142e884ff
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: not really an Ada question
Date: 2000/02/17
Message-ID: <wcchff7gbf0.fsf@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 586933253
Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
References: 
 <Pine.A41.3.96-heb-2.07.1000215155013.63302B-100000@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il>
 <88d88d$hnp$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <Pine.A41.3.96-heb-2.07.1000216094417.88940B-100000@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il>
 <Pine.A41.3.96-heb-2.07.1000216154607.61938A-100000@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-02-17T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Ehud Lamm <mslamm@mscc.huji.ac.il> writes:

> Well I tried using non_Blocking_Spawn - as this seems the thing I want,
> right? I want the next spawn to work in such a way that the two programs
> will work side by side.
> 
> Well this is not what happens.

I suggest you read the code for the body of this package, and the C code
it ends up calling.  If I recall, it doesn't work quite the same way on
all targets.

- Bob