Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 14 Jun 1996 17:18:34 -0400 | From | "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <> | Subject | Re: On SIGCHLD signal semantics |
| |
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 15:12:24 -0600 (MDT) From: Marc Aurele La France <Marc.La-France@UAlberta.CA>
It follows that the behaviour that occurs when inheriting a SIGCHLD handler of SIG_IGN is left as unspecified by both POSIX and the above spec. It might well be that we are free to decide what we please as to what that behaviour should be (including crashing the machine if so decided). This might sound fascetious, but it is according to the "letter of the law".
Um, no. POSIX specifies that children are supposed to be an exact duplicate of the parent process. Making children do something different would be (a) complicated and (b) wrong.
Why are we trying to work so hard to accomodate broken programs? Broken programs should be fixed, not coddled by adding needless complexity into the kernel.
- Ted
|  |