Mail Archives: cygwin/2005/05/25/00:07:54
On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 09:45:50AM +1000, Sonam Chauhan wrote:
>Please clarify so I understand better.
>
>Are you saying that since...
>
>> >ps -W will also not always properly report on execed processes in
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >general. Since ps -W uses CW_GETPINFO_FULL,
>> > ...
>
>... by implication, CW_GETPINFO_FULL does not report on execed
>processes properly.
Now you're getting it.
>If this is the case, isn't this a bug in CW_GETPINFO_FULL?
>
>Won't it be better fixing this bug, than fixing 'Proc::ProcessTable' and 'ps
>-W' and all the other programs that uses CW_GETPINFO_FULL?
There is no reference implementation which would specify that the
behavior which I noted was incorrect. "CW_GETPINFO_FULL" was
implemented for "ps -W". I don't believe I've ever heard anyone
complaining about the way this works in "ps -W" or in "all of the other
programs" which use this.
If you want to submit a patch which changes this behavior, I'll
certainly review it promptly. I don't believe that it would be trivial
to do, however.
It seems to me that it would be a lot easier to work around in
the perl module.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -