Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 17:46:10 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@cygwin.com>
To: cygwin@cygwin.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@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <20110402124606.GA6475@vegeta.utgard.biz> <BANLkTikmFE14=uZNT8iQBd1CXK2qd-Yc-A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikmFE14=uZNT8iQBd1CXK2qd-Yc-A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.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