Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!news.kei.com!news.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!EU.net!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!uknet!newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!edcogsci!richard
From: richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin)
Subject: Re: What is a zombie?
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: pitcairn
Message-ID: <DynH6C.Cow@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: cnews@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Organization: HCRC, University of Edinburgh
References: <52jtk1$8s@uriah.heep.sax.de> <52ogk7$sg3@charm.il.ft.hse.nl> <52pgcp$d93@uriah.heep.sax.de>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 13:23:00 GMT
Lines: 21
In article <52pgcp$d93@uriah.heep.sax.de> joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) writes:
>> On a POSIX machine, ignoring SIGCHLD will automatically reap
>> child-processes.
This is the system V behaviour, so it may well be POSIX too. It's long
been a pitfall for portability.
>SIGCHLD is already ignored by default. Why should ignoring it twice
>have any other effect?
Because system V sucks? This is from the Solaris 2 man page:
If any of the above functions are used to set SIGCHLD's
disposition to SIG_IGN, the calling process's child
processes will not create zombie processes when they ter-
minate (see exit(2)).
-- Richard
--
"Nothing can stop me now... except microscopic germs"