X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20110402124606.GA6475@vegeta.utgard.biz> References: <20110402124606.GA6475@vegeta.utgard.biz> Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 15:12:44 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 1.7.9-1: kill( pid, 0 ) on child before waitpid returns -1. From: Andy Koppe To: cygwin@cygwin.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com 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." Andy -- 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