Re: Okay so you do not compile perl :(

Karl J. Runge (runge@redhook.llnl.gov)
Thu, 24 Apr 97 00:35:11 PDT


On Wed, 23 Apr 1997, Bret Stastny <bstastnX@td2cad.intel.com> wrote:
> Alright so you usually do not compile perl. So I am for sure not a perl
> expert, maybe someone can give me a hand.
>
> I got the script going, and connected a client to it, (script is on a nt
> box) the script ran told me it had a connection then it got to the fork
> command and crashed.
>
> Any ideas.

As I understand things, e.g:

http://www.endcontsw.com/people/evangelo/Perl_for_Win32_FAQ_5.html

NT does not have the equivalent of the Unix fork() command. This is a
shame because fork() is a very useful syscall. I guess the NT designers
figured people would always use sexier threads? Oh well...

Anyway, I haven't looked at the script, but there is no reason in
principle the fork() has to be done. Without fork() the script has to
complete the transaction before going back to listening. More prone to
blocking of course, but it might be pretty usable if you don't have alot
of hosts running deschall. The transactions are usually very short and
sweet.

So maybe add a -nofork flag and feature to the script?

Karl

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karl J. Runge -- Linux: it's the Real thing -- runge@crl.com
-- http://www.crl.com/~runge
Friends don't let friends do DOS, or even Win95. (510)-516-7127