Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: On SIGCHLD signal semantics | Date | Tue, 18 Jun 1996 14:23:48 +0200 | From | Michiel Boland <> |
| |
Marc wrote:
[..] >First, applications that set their SIGCHLD handler to SIG_IGN are not >inherently broken. They are simply expecting System V semantics.
But Linux is not System V. Linux is Linux. Ergo: these applications are broken. Full stop.
[..] >One open question remains, and that is the advisability of causing child >processes to inherit SIG_IGN as their SIGCHLD signal handler (i.e. to do >an exec* syscall while ignoring child processes).
Perhaps the SIGCHLD handler can be reset to SIG_DFL across an exec, unless of course POSIX exlicitly forbids this. -- Michiel Boland <boland@sci.kun.nl> University of Nijmegen The Netherlands
|  |