From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Nov 1 00:02:40 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id AAA04346 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 00:02:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de [141.76.1.11]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA04337 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 00:02:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from sax.sax.de (sax.sax.de [193.175.26.33]) by irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with ESMTP id IAA25642; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 08:59:45 +0100 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by sax.sax.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with UUCP id IAA17694; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 08:59:45 +0100 Received: (from j@localhost) by uriah.heep.sax.de (8.8.2/8.6.9) id IAA21164; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 08:51:08 +0100 (MET) From: J Wunsch Message-Id: <199611010751.IAA21164@uriah.heep.sax.de> Subject: Re: Zombie processes To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD hackers) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 08:51:08 +0100 (MET) Cc: ormonde@trem.cnt.org.br In-Reply-To: <199610312111.OAA26221@phaeton.artisoft.com> from Terry Lambert at "Oct 31, 96 02:11:07 pm" X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-PGP-Fingerprint: DC 47 E6 E4 FF A6 E9 8F 93 21 E0 7D F9 12 D6 4E X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL17 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk As Terry Lambert wrote: > > > Alternately, set a signal handler of SIG_IGN for SIGCHLD. This is > > > guaranteed to not create zombies in the first place for all POSIX > > > compliant or conformant OS's. > > You are wrong with this opinion, and you have been told this before. > I didn't say it did. > > I said all POSIX compliant or conformant acted this way. You said it were ``guaranteed'', and this implies at least to the innocent reader that Posix would mandate it this way. It doesn't. I call this intent of confusion, at least. It's not helpful to the one who's been asking the question in the first place, either. If we will ever implement it (i started, but got stuck at some place and had to rearrange priorities), we most likely won't implement it in your intended way (aka. the SVR3 way) at all, but would use SA_NOCLDWAIT for it, as does SVR4. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)