AFAIK no one else has described the same problem, so I'd be hesistant about making it the default on systems that define SA_NOCLDWAIT and aren't tru64. We may tickle something that we may not want to be messing with.
Just my 2cents; you'll do want you want. Jeff Trawick wrote: > > This patch looks reasonable to me. Any comments from others? > > We may need to eventually add support for systems with no > SA_NOCLDWAIT. Some such systems may leave zombies when SIGCHLD is > SIG_IGN-ored. > > For that case we'd need to set a handler to reap (and ignore) the > status. > > > *** srclib/apr/threadproc/unix/signals.c.orig Tue Apr 16 18:22:07 2002 > > > > --- srclib/apr/threadproc/unix/signals.c Wed Apr 17 10:03:48 2002 > > > > *************** > > *** 105,110 **** > > --- 105,116 ---- > > #ifdef SA_INTERRUPT /* SunOS */ > > act.sa_flags |= SA_INTERRUPT; > > #endif > > + #ifdef SA_NOCLDWAIT > > + /* this is required on Tru64 to cause child processes to > > + disapear gracefully - XPG4 compatible */ > > + if((signo == SIGCHLD) && (func == SIG_IGN)) > > + act.sa_flags |= SA_NOCLDWAIT; > > + #endif > > if (sigaction(signo, &act, &oact) < 0) > > return SIG_ERR; > > return oact.sa_handler; > > -- > Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Born in Roswell... married an alien... > -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
