But it seems to behave as intended if I change it to:
volatile int *i = &x;
Main Topics
Browse All TopicsI just had a question about fork. Suppose I do:
int i = 0; int *x = &i;
pid_t p;
p = fork();
if(p == 0)
{
(*x)++;
exit(1);
}
else if (p > 0)
{
wait(p);
}
printf("x = %d\n", *x);
My problem is that although a copy of the stack is made, shouldn't the value of x remain the same as a pointer to the original i? Because it appears after the fork that x has a different in the client than in the parent..why is this?
This Question has been solved and asker verified All Experts Exchange premium technology solutions are available to subscription members.
Experts Exchange has been collecting answers to technology questions since 1996…3 million and counting! If you have a question, chances are we already have your answer.
If you can't find the exact answer you're looking for, ask our exclusive community of 50,000 experts. You’ll get a personalized answer from a trusted professional.
Thousands of free tech tips, tricks, how-to’s and tutorials are available in our peer reviewed articles section. See for yourself how smart our experts are, no login required.
Access the answers to your technology questions today.
30-day free trial. Register in 60 seconds.
Members of the expert community talk about why the experience at Experts Exchange is different than what you will find anywhere else.

Try it out and discover for yourself.
30-day free trial. Register in 60 seconds.
Join the community of experts here and help other tech pros by answering question in your area of expertise. You can earn FREE access to all Experts Exchange's premium features and resources.
There should be no inter-process interference here. fork() makes a complete copy of the process image. The only reason for the any value change is the parent line:
(*x)++;
This will not affect the child.
Perhaps I am missing something, but I think perhaps you are confusing threading semantics with fork. There is no shared data here.
Business Accounts
Answer for Membership
by: BrianGEFF719Posted on 2009-10-10 at 03:23:54ID: 25541691
Does this make sense? What i'm trying to say is that if you have any integer in the parent the child will have the same value, but it seems that this isn't the case with pointers.