[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: delete-process bug
From: |
Kim F. Storm |
Subject: |
Re: delete-process bug |
Date: |
Tue, 30 May 2006 14:11:23 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
address@hidden (Michaël Cadilhac) writes:
> It seems that the guard we put (#ifdef SIGCHLD) was not the right
> thing to do, isn't it ?
I promised Eli to shut up, but it once again occurred to me that the
sigchld_handler is only called _IF_ SIGCHLD is defined.
That's true even on MS-Windows (which does define SIGCHLD), although
it uses an indirect method to call the signal handler (see w32proc.c).
Since the sigchld_handler is only installed if SIGCHLD is defined,
it will only ever be called (to cleanup deleted_pid_list) if
SIGCHLD is defined.
So it still seems wrong to put anything on deleted_pid_list unless
SIGCHLD is defined ...
And sigchld_handler should be conditioned by #ifdef SIGCHLD.
Sorry that I'm going round in circles (perhaps my brain in an infinite loop :-)
--
Kim F. Storm <address@hidden> http://www.cua.dk
- Re: delete-process bug, (continued)
- Re: delete-process bug, Eli Zaretskii, 2006/05/29
- Re: delete-process bug, Eli Zaretskii, 2006/05/28
- Re: delete-process bug, Kim F. Storm, 2006/05/29
- Re: delete-process bug, Michaël Cadilhac, 2006/05/29
- Re: delete-process bug, Eli Zaretskii, 2006/05/29
- Re: delete-process bug, Michaël Cadilhac, 2006/05/29
- Re: delete-process bug, Eli Zaretskii, 2006/05/29
- Re: delete-process bug, Michaël Cadilhac, 2006/05/29
- Re: delete-process bug, Eli Zaretskii, 2006/05/29
- Re: delete-process bug, Michaël Cadilhac, 2006/05/29
- Re: delete-process bug,
Kim F. Storm <=
- Re: delete-process bug, Michaël Cadilhac, 2006/05/30
- Re: delete-process bug, Kim F. Storm, 2006/05/30
- Re: delete-process bug, Michaël Cadilhac, 2006/05/30
- Re: delete-process bug, Agustin Martin, 2006/05/29
- Re: delete-process bug (was: Ispell loads dict twice.), Kim F. Storm, 2006/05/25