On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxx wrote:
> >> It is perfectly possible to have a handler for SIGCHLD.
> > ... but not one that can survive exec().
> No. But if you are the programmer who sets the action for
> SIGCHLD to SIG_IGN, disregarding the POSIX warnings, then
> you are responsible for what the program does. One way of
> making everybody happy would be to set the action for
> SIGCHLD back to SIG_DFL after the fork but before the exec
> of any child.
But that's not what POSIX et alia did. They "recommend" that the exec()'d
application always reset SIGCHLD, not the exec() caller.
Backing up a bit, what does it matter where the reset occurs? That
decision should be made in terms of impact. Politics aside, it seems a
whole lot easier to change implementations, rather than applications.
Marc.
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Marc Aurele La France | work: 1-780-492-9310 |
| Computing and Network Services | fax: 1-780-492-1729 |
| 352 General Services Building | email: yyy@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| University of Alberta +-----------------------------------+
| Edmonton, Alberta | |
| T6G 2H1 | Standard disclaimers apply |
| CANADA | |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
XFree86 Core Team member. ATI driver and X server internals.
|