Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 11:27:06 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, ormonde@trem.cnt.org.br Subject: Re: Zombie processes Message-ID: <199611011827.LAA28085@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199611010751.IAA21164@uriah.heep.sax.de> from "J Wunsch" at Nov 1, 96 08:51:08 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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. What about the innocent developer, whose code works on all other platforms? > 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. Well, that's an implementation detail... it only bears on the amount of work required to do it, not whether or not it should be done. We have a lot of non-POSIX historical behaviours. This is another (though POSIX systems implement it as well) which is worth emulating. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611011827.LAA28085>