Re: [dev] [PATCH] dwm -- Proper SIGCHLD usage , fix issue with uncollected processes

On (12/08/09 22:14), Neale Pickett wrote:
> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:14:47 -0600
> From: Neale Pickett <neale_AT_woozle.org>
> To: dev mail list <dev_AT_suckless.org>
> Subject: Re: [dev] [PATCH] dwm -- Proper SIGCHLD usage , fix issue with
> uncollected processes
> List-Id: dev mail list <dev.suckless.org>
>
> Premysl 'Anydot' Hruby <dfenze_AT_gmail.com> writes:
>
> > This is much cleaner and portable way of using SIGCHLD. It also
> > disallow existence of defunct processes, one which are executed for
> > example from .Xsession before (on the end) exec /path/../dwm
>
> I contributed the original sigchld patch. I like your patch, Anydot. I
> wonder what people think of calling sigchld(0) from setup()? This would
> clean up any zombies immediately, and install the signal handler.
>
> Neale
>

I'm fine with it, it would catch program exited before sigchld is
installed.

-Ph

-- 
Premysl "Anydot" Hruby, http://www.redrum.cz/
-
I'm a signature virus. Please add me to your signature and help me spread!