[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-gnulib] addition: wait-process.h, wait-process.c, 2nd round

From: Bruno Haible
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnulib] addition: wait-process.h, wait-process.c, 2nd round
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:16:12 +0100
User-agent: KMail/1.5

Paul Eggert wrote:
> >   - extremely rare, due to the time it requires until a PID is reused,
> >   - due to an inherent limitation of waitpid in POSIX: there is no way to
> >     ask waitpid: "Tell me when the process terminates but keep the
> >     process in zombie state afterwards."
> If you can assume the XSI standard extension to POSIX, it sounds like
> there is a way to solve the problem: you can pass WNOWAIT to waitpid.
> WNOWAIT keeps the process whose status is returned in a waitable
> state. The process may be waited for again with identical results, and
> this sounds like it's what you want.

Yes, thanks a lot. I didn't know about this flag.

> > > I'm a bit dubious about the semantics, portability, and
> > > understandability of structs whose members are volatile.
> >
> > It's the same as with const:
> Yes, but the same objections apply to const.

Last time I saw a compiler problem with 'const' was with gcc-2.7. Quite some
time ago...


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]