Re: why doesn't "exec" replace current executable w/new

On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 11:51:20AM -, Dave Korn wrote: >On 06 November 2006 11:46, Linda Walsh wrote: >>So why the top level bash? Is there anything the parent bash can do >>that the child bash cannot? > >The obvious WAG would be "wait for SIGCHLD, meaningfully" :) Well, there's that, and the

RE: why doesn't "exec" replace current executable w/new

On 06 November 2006 11:46, Linda Walsh wrote: > So why the top level bash? Is there anything the parent bash can > do that the child bash cannot? The obvious WAG would be "wait for SIGCHLD, meaningfully" :) cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today -- Unsubscri

why doesn't "exec" replace current executable w/new

I'm curious -- I thought "exec" was supposed to replace the currently running executing image with the new image. When I do an "exec" in "bash", it leaves the original bash.exe in memory -- but only if the parent is at the top of its tree. I.e. -- I can exec multiple bash's, but only the initial