From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6542 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2011 21:46:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 6530 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Apr 2011 21:46:25 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nm17-vm0.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com (HELO nm17-vm0.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com) (98.139.53.208) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 21:46:12 +0000 Received: from [98.139.52.190] by nm17.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Apr 2011 21:46:11 -0000 Received: from [74.6.228.33] by tm3.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Apr 2011 21:46:11 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp102.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 17 Apr 2011 21:46:11 -0000 Received: from cgf.cx (cgf@96.252.118.15 with login) by smtp102.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Apr 2011 14:46:11 -0700 PDT X-Yahoo-SMTP: jenXL62swBAWhMTL3wnej93oaS0ClBQOAKs8jbEbx_o- Received: from localhost (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) by cgf.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id B119B4A801A for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 17:46:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:17:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: 1.7.9-1: kill( pid, 0 ) on child before waitpid returns -1. Message-ID: <20110417214610.GA24173@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <20110402124606.GA6475@vegeta.utgard.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2011-04/txt/msg00231.txt.bz2 On Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 03:12:44PM +0100, Andy Koppe wrote: >2011/4/2 Marcin Konarski: >> Subject says it all. > >Nope, it doesn't actually. Explaining why it's wrong would have been >nice. Here's the relevant bit from POSIX: > >"Existing implementations vary on the result of a kill() with pid >indicating an inactive process (a terminated process that has not been >waited for by its parent). Some indicate success on such a call >(subject to permission checking), while others give an error of >[ESRCH]. Since the definition of process lifetime in this volume of >IEEE Std 1003.1-2001 covers inactive processes, the [ESRCH] error as >described is inappropriate in this case." Thanks for the test case and the definitive source. I've checked in a fix and am in the process of building a snapshot to fix the problem. It should be available in a few minutes at http://cygwin.com/snapshots/ . cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple