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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
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, Alexhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030418230818.GE3693>