Mail Archives: cygwin/2006/11/13/11:10:36
On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 03:18:56PM +0000, Eric Blake wrote:
>Charles Wilson <cygwin <at> cwilson.fastmail.fm> writes:
>
>> Or what *should* be happening.
>>
>> So, I think that in src/command.c, right before exit() is called, rxvt
>> ought to kill its children -- except I thought exit() should do that
>> already?
>
>http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/exit.html:
>"Termination of a process does not directly terminate its children. The sending
>of a SIGHUP signal as described below indirectly terminates children in some
>circumstances.
>...
>"If the process is a controlling process, the SIGHUP signal shall be sent to
>each process in the foreground process group of the controlling terminal
>belonging to the calling process.
>"If the process is a controlling process, the controlling terminal associated
>with the session shall be disassociated from the session, allowing it to be
>acquired by a new controlling process.
>"If the exit of the process causes a process group to become orphaned, and if
>any member of the newly-orphaned process group is stopped, then a SIGHUP signal
>followed by a SIGCONT signal shall be sent to each process in the newly-
>orphaned process group."
>
>Sounds like you are right - rxvt should be a controlling process, so calling
>exit() should automatically cause cygwin to send SIGHUP to the process group,
>and rxvt shouldn't have to do any manual killing.
This is handled in dcrt0.cc:do_exit(). I'm wondering if rxvt is not
dealing with the SIGHUP that cygwin should be sending to it on
CTRL_CLOSE, though.
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 -