Re: [dev] [PATCH] dwm -- Proper SIGCHLD usage , fix issue with uncollected processes

2009-08-13 Thread Neale Pickett
Anselm R Garbe writes: > > I'm fine with this patch, will be applied soon. We think you should also consider changing line 1431 to call sigchld(0) instead of signal(SIGCHLD, sigchld). I haven't tested this yet, though. Neale >> --- >>  dwm.c |    8 +--- >>  1 files changed, 5 insertions(+

Re: [dev] [PATCH] dwm -- Proper SIGCHLD usage , fix issue with uncollected processes

2009-08-13 Thread Anselm R Garbe
2009/8/11 Premysl 'Anydot' Hruby : > This is much cleaner and portable way of using SIGCHLD. It also disallow > existence of defunct processes, one which are executed for example from > .Xsession before (on the end) exec /path/../dwm > --- >  dwm.c |    8 +--- >  1 files changed, 5 insertions(+

Re: [dev] [PATCH] dwm -- Proper SIGCHLD usage , fix issue with uncollected processes

2009-08-13 Thread Premysl Hruby
On (12/08/09 22:14), Neale Pickett wrote: > Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:14:47 -0600 > From: Neale Pickett > To: dev mail list > Subject: Re: [dev] [PATCH] dwm -- Proper SIGCHLD usage , fix issue with > uncollected processes > List-Id: dev mail list > > Premys

Re: [dev] [PATCH] dwm -- Proper SIGCHLD usage , fix issue with uncollected processes

2009-08-12 Thread Neale Pickett
Premysl 'Anydot' Hruby writes: > This is much cleaner and portable way of using SIGCHLD. It also > disallow existence of defunct processes, one which are executed for > example from .Xsession before (on the end) exec /path/../dwm I contributed the original sigchld patch. I like your patch, Anyd

Re: [dev] [PATCH] dwm -- Proper SIGCHLD usage , fix issue with uncollected processes

2009-08-12 Thread Jukka Salmi
Premysl Hruby --> dev (2009-08-12 17:39:26 +0200): > On (12/08/09 17:24), Jukka Salmi wrote: [...] > > Seems fine, but -- assuming POSIX.1 reliable signals -- you don't need > > to reestablish the handler before returning from it. Or should systems > > with the old semantics really be supported by

Re: [dev] [PATCH] dwm -- Proper SIGCHLD usage , fix issue with uncollected processes

2009-08-12 Thread Premysl Hruby
On (12/08/09 17:24), Jukka Salmi wrote: > Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:24:24 +0200 > From: Jukka Salmi > To: dev@suckless.org > Subject: Re: [dev] [PATCH] dwm -- Proper SIGCHLD usage , fix issue with > uncollected processes > List-Id: dev mail list > User-Agent: Mu

Re: [dev] [PATCH] dwm -- Proper SIGCHLD usage , fix issue with uncollected processes

2009-08-12 Thread Jukka Salmi
Premysl 'Anydot' Hruby --> dev (2009-08-11 23:43:58 +0200): > This is much cleaner and portable way of using SIGCHLD. It also disallow > existence of defunct processes, one which are executed for example from > .Xsession before (on the end) exec /path/../dwm > --- > dwm.c |8 +--- > 1 file

[dev] [PATCH] dwm -- Proper SIGCHLD usage , fix issue with uncollected processes

2009-08-11 Thread Premysl 'Anydot' Hruby
This is much cleaner and portable way of using SIGCHLD. It also disallow existence of defunct processes, one which are executed for example from .Xsession before (on the end) exec /path/../dwm --- dwm.c |8 +--- 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/dwm.c b/dwm.c i