| delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
| X-Recipient: | archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com |
| X-SWARE-Spam-Status: | No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY |
| X-Spam-Check-By: | sourceware.org |
| X-Yahoo-SMTP: | jenXL62swBAWhMTL3wnej93oaS0ClBQOAKs8jbEbx_o- |
| Date: | Sun, 17 Apr 2011 17:46:10 -0400 |
| From: | Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com> |
| To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
| Subject: | Re: 1.7.9-1: kill( pid, 0 ) on child before waitpid returns -1. |
| Message-ID: | <20110417214610.GA24173@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> |
| Reply-To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
| Mail-Followup-To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
| References: | <20110402124606 DOT GA6475 AT vegeta DOT utgard DOT biz> <BANLkTikmFE14=uZNT8iQBd1CXK2qd-Yc-A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> |
| MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
| In-Reply-To: | <BANLkTikmFE14=uZNT8iQBd1CXK2qd-Yc-A@mail.gmail.com> |
| User-Agent: | Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
| Mailing-List: | contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm |
| List-Id: | <cygwin.cygwin.com> |
| List-Unsubscribe: | <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com> |
| List-Subscribe: | <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com> |
| List-Archive: | <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/> |
| List-Post: | <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com> |
| List-Help: | <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs> |
| Sender: | cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com |
| Mail-Followup-To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
| Delivered-To: | mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
On Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 03:12:44PM +0100, Andy Koppe wrote: >2011/4/2 Marcin Konarski: >> Subject says it all. > >Nope, it doesn't actually. Explaining why it's wrong would have been >nice. Here's the relevant bit from POSIX: > >"Existing implementations vary on the result of a kill() with pid >indicating an inactive process (a terminated process that has not been >waited for by its parent). Some indicate success on such a call >(subject to permission checking), while others give an error of >[ESRCH]. Since the definition of process lifetime in this volume of >IEEE Std 1003.1-2001 covers inactive processes, the [ESRCH] error as >described is inappropriate in this case." Thanks for the test case and the definitive source. I've checked in a fix and am in the process of building a snapshot to fix the problem. It should be available in a few minutes at http://cygwin.com/snapshots/ . cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |