Disabling the SIGCHLD handler

Marc Lehmann schmorp at schmorp.de
Fri Jan 18 12:23:46 CET 2008

On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 07:54:20AM -0500, Chris Shoemaker <c.shoemaker at cox.net> wrote:
> > No, we don't. Your claim was wrong and is wrong. We do not agree the
> > least. I don't understand why you cannot accept that.
> >From my perspective, you're agreeing with me.  If you disagree, we'll
> just have to agree to disagree about whether or not we agree!

As long as you make an incorretc claim and keep it up without taking
it back, we cannot "agree to disagree" since that is not a matter of
perspective. Maybe you don't understand things, and feel prompted to make
incorrect statements about it because of that, but thats not an excuse.

> > The child dies only once, and this is reported properly by libev to all
> > interested watchers. In no way does libev make it as if a child died more
> > than once.
> I'll assume that in your view this is somehow not equivocation.
> There's no need for you to explain any further.

See above. This has nothing to do with my view on things.

> > c) if you have two watchers that wait for pid 5, then the second one might
> >    not get the exit status at all, or the exit status of the wrong one.
> actually, one would get the exit status, and one would get ECHILD.

nothing in your solution ensures that, however, so that statement is

> > there are other problems and races.
> I don't see those as problems.  That's the behavior I want.

Thats fine with me, don't push it on libev though, please, which tries to be
race-free and correct.

                The choice of a       Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG
      -----==-     _GNU_              http://www.deliantra.net
      ----==-- _       generation
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __      Marc Lehmann
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /      pcg at goof.com
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\

More information about the libev mailing list