| To: | yyyyy@xxxxxxxxx, yyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: set -e and SIGCHLD |
| From: | yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxx |
| Date: | Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:02:08 +0100 (MET) |
| Cc: | yyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, yyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, yyy@xxxxxxxxxxx |
I think your picture of this signal business is incorrect and that leads to asking the wrong questions. When a process dies its resources can be freed, except that maybe someone wants to see its exit status so some structure related to the deceased process survives. In this stage the process is called a zombie. You (=Clive) said something like (forgive my bad memory) "it is false that the parent process does nothing, it converts the child into a zombie". But that is a strange formulation. No code of the parent process is run for this conversion. A terminated process is a zombie by definition, until either it has been waited upon, or we decide that waiting is not required for the child to be reaped. In particular, your question > One thing I'm not sure about: does SIGCHLD/SIG_DFL interrupt the process > or not must be answered by no. Thus, some of the changes you propose are incorrect. Andries |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Comments on XBDd5 ERN 322, Geoff Clare |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: set -e and SIGCHLD, Andries.Brouwer |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: set -e and SIGCHLD, Andrew Josey |
| Next by Thread: | Re: set -e and SIGCHLD, Clive D.W. Feather |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [All Lists] |