X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 06:56:00 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: why doesn't "exec" replace current executable w/new Message-ID: <20061106115600.GA1095@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <454F2076 DOT 3010606 AT tlinx DOT org> <006301c70199$e076e1e0$a501a8c0 AT CAM DOT ARTIMI DOT COM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <006301c70199$e076e1e0$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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 Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 11:51:20AM -0000, Dave Korn wrote: >On 06 November 2006 11:46, Linda Walsh wrote: >>So why the top level bash? Is there anything the parent bash can do >>that the child bash cannot? > >The obvious WAG would be "wait for SIGCHLD, meaningfully" :) Well, there's that, and there's also the fact that Cygwin has to emulate exec. It's not a Windows function. There is no way to tell, e.g., a Windows command shell to keep waiting for a new process that has been execed without keeping the old one around. See CreateProcess and the WaitFor* functions. cgf -- 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/