delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Mailing-List: | contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm |
List-Subscribe: | <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com> |
List-Archive: | <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/> |
List-Post: | <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com> |
List-Help: | <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs> |
Sender: | cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com |
Delivered-To: | mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com |
Message-ID: | <02c001c0b979$5483a970$0200a8c0@lifelesswks> |
From: | "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au> |
To: | <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com> |
References: | <021801c0b8d8$67a70660$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <12075047372 DOT 20010330102931 AT logos-m DOT ru> <028201c0b8ea$5c6efed0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20010330104445 DOT C12718 AT redhat DOT com> |
Subject: | Re: signals and fhandlers |
Date: | Sat, 31 Mar 2001 10:27:10 +1000 |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
X-Priority: | 3 |
X-MSMail-Priority: | Normal |
X-Mailer: | Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 |
X-MimeOLE: | Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 |
X-OriginalArrivalTime: | 31 Mar 2001 00:21:50.0765 (UTC) FILETIME=[94A85DD0:01C0B978] |
----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com> To: "egor duda" <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 1:44 AM Subject: Re: signals and fhandlers > On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 04:48:23PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: > >Chris's comment on inherited handles was that non-cygwin applications > >don't know what to do _anyway_ with inherited handles. (Chris: maybe I > >got this wrong? ). Anyway the worst case is that the writers will not > >know that the readers have all died and won't return EPIPE. This can > >happen with things are killed via task manager anyway. (That's why > >there's a warning!). > > That's the worst case that Egor was mentioning. If we can develop > a scenario that allows the right thing to happen when a program takes > a non-standard exit then we should pursue this at all costs. I have > always tried to do this in all of my cygwin development. I have, so > far, avoided relying on cygwin cleanups for proper operations. Referencing http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/psdk/winbase/prothred_1bg3.htm all process handles are closed on a TerminateProcess() call. I'll see if I can build detection of readers around some handle rather than a counter as I have today. That'll give an accurate count even if the process is terminated. > >Also, the pipes will have to be in the cygwin shared memory area, and > >Chris indicated he didn't want any more data in there (I was going to > >try anon pipes, when I posted my question and got that answer).. > > I just said that you shouldn't use the existing shared memory areas. You > can create your own small shared memory areas. > That's what I took it to mean. In fact I am using named objects for my implementation. Rob
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |