On 10/6/2011 9:29 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
I understand what you say you did. There was no reason to reexplain.
Once again, I don't understand why Cygwin's current implementation is
inadequate to handle the problem that you are seeing. You can assert
that it must be because Cygwin does not explicitly send a SIGHUP on
close and you may be right but, again, I don't see why the current
implementation, which should amount to the same thing, does not work.
Yes. It isn't explicitly implemented but it shouldn't matter.
cgf
OK, we are on the same page.
If I find some time, I will try to build a test case for it.
But time is scarce and this is not a priority
thanks
Marco
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
