One nice feature is the abundance of greenery that can be seen around the stadium, with lots of trees surrounding it. There is a portion of terracing to one side (affectionately known as Moaners Corner) of this and some cabin type offices at the other end. These stands seem quite old and unfortunately, they look to have better days. The other stand beside is used as a family stand.

On the other side are a couple of small strange looking, covered seated stands, I guess one of which at one time was the Main Stand, as this has the team dugouts located in front. This terrace looks a little ugly as it has some quite large warehouse type structures, sitting behind it, which comprise the David Lloyd gym and tennis club. On one side there is a small open terrace, called the Chris Lane Terrace. At the other end is a small covered terrace, called the Kingfield Road End or Jewson Stand for sponsorship purposes. This stand, the Leslie Gosden Stand, towers above the rest of the stadium. A lot of the process context is partially or totally preserved, including environment, file descriptors, priority, ignored signals, current and root directory, limits, various masks, processor bindings, privileges and several other things foreign to the process address space.The ground has an impressive and fairly modern looking single tiered stand situated at one end of the ground. 'Only' the process address space (code, heap and stack) are substituted, not overwritten. Nothing is rewritten given the fact nothing was actually written in the first place. Moreover, it is incorrect to state the created context is overwritten. It is not a waste of time and resource as most of this resource is virtual, due to the copy on write mechanism used. Isn't that a waste of time and resource, because we are creating aД¬ontext ( consumes time and wastes memory ) and then over writing it? Cloning is usually less complex than creating from scratch. One reason would be because it is an efficient way to create the whole shebang. So why is the intermediate step ( of creating a child with same There are some cases where no exec need to follow a fork. After a fork, you already have new process, even not that much different from its parent. Only on calling exec(), this child process turns out to be a new This makes fork() not only memory-efficient, but also fast, because it only needs to copy a 'table of contents'. fork() doesn't allocate new memory for the child process, but points the child to the parent's memory, with the instructions to make a copy of a page only if the page is ever written to. And indeed, the process spawning calls of competing operating systems typically fall somewhere in between.ДЄs for the waste of memory, it is avoided with the copy on write technique. Without fork(), the API for spawning processes would end up either extremely fat or not very useful. But the fork() design enables arbitrary manipulation of per-process resources in the child - one can close unwanted file descriptors, modify per-process limits, drop privileges, manipulate signal masks, and so on. Of course, for this simple case, there could be a spawning API that would simply do this automatically, given the proper parameters.

Note how the redirection of standard output to the pipe is done in the child, between fork and exec.

The canonical example is constructing a pipe: // read output of 'ls'Д¬lose(pipe_fd) // we don't want to read from the pipeДup2(pipe_fd, 1) // redirect stdout to the write end of the pipe The intermediate step enables you to set up shared resources in the child process without the external program being aware of it.

After the end fan fork