Re: [Bug-gnulib] addition: wait-process.h, wait-process.c, 2nd round

[Bruno Haible]

Paul Eggert wrote:
> >   - extremely rare, due to the time it requires until a PID is reused,
> >   - due to an inherent limitation of waitpid in POSIX: there is no way to
> >     ask waitpid: "Tell me when the process terminates but keep the
> >     process in zombie state afterwards."
>
> If you can assume the XSI standard extension to POSIX, it sounds like
> there is a way to solve the problem: you can pass WNOWAIT to waitpid.
> WNOWAIT keeps the process whose status is returned in a waitable
> state. The process may be waited for again with identical results, and
> this sounds like it's what you want.

Yes, thanks a lot. I didn't know about this flag.

> > > I'm a bit dubious about the semantics, portability, and
> > > understandability of structs whose members are volatile.
> >
> > It's the same as with const:
>
> Yes, but the same objections apply to const.

Last time I saw a compiler problem with 'const' was with gcc-2.7. Quite some
time ago...

Bruno