On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 03:18:56PM +0000, Eric Blake wrote: >Charles Wilson <cygwin <at> cwilson.fastmail.fm> writes: > >> Or what *should* be happening. >> >> So, I think that in src/command.c, right before exit() is called, rxvt >> ought to kill its children -- except I thought exit() should do that >> already? > >http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/exit.html: >"Termination of a process does not directly terminate its children. The >sending >of a SIGHUP signal as described below indirectly terminates children in some >circumstances. >... >"If the process is a controlling process, the SIGHUP signal shall be sent to >each process in the foreground process group of the controlling terminal >belonging to the calling process. >"If the process is a controlling process, the controlling terminal associated >with the session shall be disassociated from the session, allowing it to be >acquired by a new controlling process. >"If the exit of the process causes a process group to become orphaned, and if >any member of the newly-orphaned process group is stopped, then a SIGHUP >signal >followed by a SIGCONT signal shall be sent to each process in the newly- >orphaned process group." > >Sounds like you are right - rxvt should be a controlling process, so calling >exit() should automatically cause cygwin to send SIGHUP to the process group, >and rxvt shouldn't have to do any manual killing.
This is handled in dcrt0.cc:do_exit(). I'm wondering if rxvt is not dealing with the SIGHUP that cygwin should be sending to it on CTRL_CLOSE, though. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
