From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9469 invoked by alias); 5 Oct 2006 05:48:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 9448 invoked by alias); 5 Oct 2006 05:48:55 -0000 Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 05:48:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20061005054855.9447.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug libgcj/29324] add wait handling hook In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: java-prs@gcc.gnu.org From: "pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu" Mailing-List: contact java-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2006-q4/txt/msg00008.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #4 from pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2006-10-05 05:48 ------- Subject: Re: add wait handling hook On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 05:42 +0000, daney at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > > ------- Comment #3 from daney at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-05 05:42 ------- > One way to fix it would be to have a reaper thread for *each* Process. Then > the reaper could do a waitpid(pid...) instead of waitpid(-1...). If one only > spawns a few processes, this would be fine. This would allow us to get rid of > the SIGCHLD handler as well. > > Another option would to have the process reaper be a seperate process, but that > scares me. Even multiple threads scares me for Linux since that would mean double the amount of processes in the process table. Maybe Linux needs this problem if it still exists. I know Linux threads had this problem but I forget if NTPL does. Thanks, Andrew Pinski -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29324