From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Sep 1 18:47:12 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA06442 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 18:47:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from counterintelligence.ml.org (mdean.vip.best.com [206.86.94.101]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA06437 for ; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 18:47:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (jamil@localhost) by counterintelligence.ml.org (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA03284; Mon, 1 Sep 1997 18:45:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 18:45:36 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jamil J. Weatherbee" To: Greg Lehey cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SIGCLD In-Reply-To: <19970902103758.36370@lemis.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > however, you change the default to explicitly ignore the signal, the > system ignores SIGCHLD and SIGCLD, but it also no longer creates > zombie processes. If you set the disposition of SIGCHLD and SIGCLD > to ignore, but you call wait anyway, it waits until all child > processes have terminated, and then returns -1 (error), with errno > set to ECHILD. You can achieve the same effect with sigaction by Ok, according to the man page the default is to ignore SIGCHLD, so in other words if I really don't care at all about the info in the data tables I don't need to install a handler that calls wait --- I just wanted to be sure that if I did not fool around with a SIGCHLD handler under freebsd that I wouldn't end up with hundreds on zombie processes waiting.