Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 03:08:19 +0400 From: Alex Semenyaka <alexs@ratmir.ru> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com> Cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libpthread patch Message-ID: <20030418230818.GE3693@snark.ratmir.ru> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10304181851120.5006-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> References: <20030418224522.GA63339@snark.ratmir.ru> <Pine.GSO.4.10.10304181851120.5006-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 06:53:54PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: > I don't think you can always set SA_NOCLDWAIT because it could > screw up wait() in programs that don't set SA_NOCLDWAIT. Sure, and I wrote it in that PR: zombie is the information for the wait, no zombie - no infromation. But are there programs which call signal(SIGCHLD, SIG_IGN) and then trying to wait()? I supposed that there are no such: suggested behaviour of signal() is the standard for a lot of systems. Yes, I know that most of them are SysV. But do we have such non-portable BSD-only products trying to use signal(SIGCHLD, SIG_IGN)/wait()? I may be wrong of course, but would anybody points me out the product that will be broken after such changes? Thanks in advance! SY, Alex
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030418230818.GE3693>