Hi Erik, On Aug 12 10:44, Erik Bray wrote: > On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Corinna Vinschen > <corinna-cyg...@cygwin.com> wrote: > > On Aug 11 11:51, Erik Bray wrote: > >> [...] > >> In response to the originally issue, this was fixed *specifically* for > >> the case of kill(pid, 0). But my reading of the above is that kill() > >> should return 0 in this case regardless of the signal (modulo > >> permissions, etc.). On Linux, for example, when calling kill with pid > >> of a zombie process the kernel will happily deliver the signal to the > >> relevant task_struct; it will just never be acted on since the task > >> will never run again. > > > > I'm not sure why cgf only fixed that for sig 0 at the time, since, as > > you noted, the text from POSIX-1.2008 does not state that this is > > *restricted* to sig 0. > > Yep, my thoughts exactly.
Funny that nobody noticed at the time, even thought the full POSIX text was quoted. > >> The below (untested) patch demonstrates the change I'm suggesting, > >> though I don't know what other code, if any, might be involved in > >> this. > > > > The original patch laid the groundwork by making sure that there are > > two states, EXITED and REAPED. Removing the explicit check for 0 is > > the right thing to do, afaics, so I tested and applied your patch as is, > > see > > https://cygwin.com/git/?p=newlib-cygwin.git;a=commitdiff;h=86f79af827729f3968d8b3b8f860ac29d200da0d > > Thank you so much! I think this is much better behavior. > > (And thanks for the correction of my name--I'm used to it being > misspelled but rarely do people notice and correct :) I belong to the misspelled kind myself (Corrina? No, Corinna! Can't you read?), so I was quite embarrassed when I did it myself :} Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
