| To: | yyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Re: RE: Re: set -e and SIGCHLD |
| From: | David Korn <yyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 13 Mar 2001 15:58:37 -0500 (EST) |
> How? According to the standard, the implementation cannot distinguish > between an inherited SIGC[H]CLD disposition and one that is explicitly > set. > > This isn't true. The behavior of SIG_IGN is left unspecified. An implementation could behave differently if it is inhereted verses if it has been set by the current process without violating the standard as far as I am aware. David Korn research!dgk yyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx David Korn research!dgk yyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Previous by Date: | Re: RE: RE: Re: set -e and SIGCHLD, David Korn |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: RE: RE: Re: set -e and SIGCHLD, Marc Aurele La France |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: RE: RE: Re: set -e and SIGCHLD, Marc Aurele La France |
| Next by Thread: | Re: RE: RE: Re: set -e and SIGCHLD, Andries.Brouwer |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [All Lists] |