Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 04:49:10 +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: <20030419004910.GG3693@snark.ratmir.ru> In-Reply-To: <20030418233414.GF3693@snark.ratmir.ru> References: <20030418224522.GA63339@snark.ratmir.ru> <Pine.GSO.4.10.10304181851120.5006-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> <20030418230818.GE3693@snark.ratmir.ru> <20030418233414.GF3693@snark.ratmir.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 03:34:14AM +0400, Alex Semenyaka wrote: > By the way... I just thought that it might be reasonable to allow user to > choose that behaviour on the fly (like he can do it for the malloc(3)). Sorry for such amount of messages. This is the last one in this bunch. I found myself software that ignores SIGCHLD with signal(3) but wants then to wait() for a child. So, I must say: this behaviour might be done as an option, if user wants it, and sould be prohibited by default. So do anybody have objections against the patch which will allow such optional behaviour if some envvariable is set? > Thanks again :) And again, and sorry :) SY, Alex
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030419004910.GG3693>