From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 18 17:49:13 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BC8F37B401; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 17:49:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from snark.ratmir.ru (snark.ratmir.ru [213.24.248.177]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB0DA43FB1; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 17:49:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from alexs@snark.ratmir.ru) Received: from snark.ratmir.ru (alexs@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by snark.ratmir.ru (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3J0nAC2067873; Sat, 19 Apr 2003 04:49:10 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from alexs@snark.ratmir.ru) Received: (from alexs@localhost) by snark.ratmir.ru (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h3J0nA0G067872; Sat, 19 Apr 2003 04:49:10 +0400 (MSD) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 04:49:10 +0400 From: Alex Semenyaka To: Daniel Eischen Message-ID: <20030419004910.GG3693@snark.ratmir.ru> References: <20030418224522.GA63339@snark.ratmir.ru> <20030418230818.GE3693@snark.ratmir.ru> <20030418233414.GF3693@snark.ratmir.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030418233414.GF3693@snark.ratmir.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org cc: Alex Semenyaka cc: David Xu cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libpthread patch X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 00:49:14 -0000 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