Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 10:00:09 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: __stub_foo macros in header files
In-Reply-To: <199908041110.HAA07932@envy.delorie.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990805095738.14908A-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, DJ Delorie wrote:

> > Then how about changing `kill's behavior instead, so this case would
> > be easily detectable by an application?  Right now, we simply return
> > non-zero and don't even set errno.
> 
> This is a bug itself, then.  For unknown pids (not self, not zero,
> whatever) we should return a proper error condition (no such
> proccess).

I would think that ENOSYS is better than ESRCH in this case, since we 
really don't implement killing another process.  ESRCH would be a lie if 
they accidentally pass the pid of an existing program, like the parent of 
the caller.

If you agree, I will make the change.