| To: | yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxx, yyyyy@xxxxxxxxx, yyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: set -e and SIGCHLD |
| From: | yyyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Date: | Tue, 13 Mar 2001 18:41:35 +0100 (MET) |
| Cc: | yyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, yyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, yyy@xxxxxxxxxxx |
>From: yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxx
>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.
If it reads "if the parent process does nothing, the child
is converted into a zombie" it would look OK.
A zombie is a process where all resources have been freed
execpt some information that could be returned if it
is waited on.
Jörg
EMail:yyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
yy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1
yyyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxx (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix
|
| Previous by Date: | A message from the Chair (was Re: Comments on XBDd5 ERN 322), Andrew Josey |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Comments on XBDd5 ERN 322, Paul Eggert |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Re: set -e and SIGCHLD, Marc Aurele La France |
| Next by Thread: | RE: Re: set -e and SIGCHLD, Bruce Korb |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [All Lists] |