Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
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
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 22:48:14 -0700
From: Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes <sthoenna AT efn DOT org>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: problems in Perl process management
Message-ID: <20050513054814.GA2124@efn.org>
References: <55E0A3E94323974F83CFC5AAB96F68B801418BFD AT snnexc03 DOT in DOT ce DOT com DOT au> <20050511151816 DOT GA10853 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20050511151816.GA10853@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-IsSubscribed: yes

On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 11:18:16AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> bearing on the statement "However, I also notice that deeper forked
> processes (grandchildren) refuse to die.  This script is only run using
> ActiveState Perl".  If someone is talking about "fork" on windows in a
> cygwin mailing list then they must be talking about starting processes
> using cygwin so mentioning a "cygwin terminal" doesn't make a lot of
> sense in that context.  You don't need to start processes from bash
> for them to be able to receive signals.

FWIW, win32 perl does emulate fork with threads (and mass copying of
all the perl code and data).  Missed the start of this thread, so
don't know how likely/unlikely that is to be the "problem" situation.
 
> If they are saying that they are unable to kill processes then, my
> previous (unstated) assumption that they are using winpids rather than
> cygwin pids seems likely.  Either that or they are using SIGTERM and the
> signal is blocked, in which case your "kill -9" would work.  I don't
> know why something which expects to be killed via SIGTERM would block
> SIGTERM but I guess it is a possibility.
> 
> Since I didn't recognize your name, and you seemed to be trying to
> inform me about code that I wrote, I included my signature in the
> message to clarify.

I, for one, understood your clarification in the "signature" message :)

--
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/