From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Nov 1 10:34:16 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id KAA13861 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 10:34:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA13848 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 10:34:05 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id LAA28085; Fri, 1 Nov 1996 11:27:06 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199611011827.LAA28085@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: Zombie processes To: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 11:27:06 -0700 (MST) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, ormonde@trem.cnt.org.br In-Reply-To: <199611010751.IAA21164@uriah.heep.sax.de> from "J Wunsch" at Nov 1, 96 08:51:08 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] 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 > 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.