[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bug in exit()?
From: |
Wolfram Gloger |
Subject: |
Re: Bug in exit()? |
Date: |
Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:46:10 +0200 (MDT) |
Hello,
> I see your idea, however the standard merely says that calling anything other
> than exec/_exit is undefined, not that it is disallowed.
Yes, sorry, I shouldn't use `disallowed' for `causes undefined
behaviour'. Anyway, we hopefully agree now that one cannot expect
exit() to work properly after vfork().
> > > default: /* Parent is blocked until child exits */
> >
> > How do you get that idea? I'm pretty sure parent and child can
> > execute concurrently.
>
> Traditional BSD semantics are that they cannot - again, see Stevens p193ff or
> the BSD vfork man page - here's the FreeBSD vfork description:
... [snipped]
> Only those Unices which quickly hacked a vfork() as a simple call to fork()
> do
> allow the parent to execute before the child exits or execs.
Thanks -- I did not know this. In fact, I agree that blocking the
parent is useful here. However, SUSV2 strangely enough doesn't
mention it at all, so I assume that there can/could be systems where
vfork()!=fork() _and_ the parent is not blocked.
Regards,
Wolfram.
- Bug in exit()?, Michael Kerrisk, 2001/04/24
- Re: Bug in exit()?, Andreas Jaeger, 2001/04/24
- Re: Bug in exit()?, Michael Kerrisk, 2001/04/24
- Re: Bug in exit()?, Wolfram Gloger, 2001/04/24
- Re: Bug in exit()?, Michael Kerrisk, 2001/04/24
- Re: Bug in exit()?, Ulrich Drepper, 2001/04/24
- Re: Bug in exit()?, Michael Kerrisk, 2001/04/25
- Re: Bug in exit()?, Ulrich Drepper, 2001/04/25
- Re: Bug in exit()?, Mike Castle, 2001/04/25
- Re: Bug in exit()?, Ulrich Drepper, 2001/04/25
- Re: Bug in exit()?,
Wolfram Gloger <=