Re: On SIGCHLD signal semantics

Michiel Boland (boland@sci.kun.nl)
Tue, 18 Jun 1996 14:23:48 +0200


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