Philip Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Jeff Trawick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I contemplated relatively-complex exit sequences so that children > > didn't exit until the test was over, but life is short, and these test > > programs should be short too. > > > > Besides adding crude error checking (crude better than none) for some > > critical APR calls, this patch ensures that apr_terminate() is not > > called in the child processes. > > Huh? I don't understand this. The child process still destroys the > semaphore.
What code is causing the child process to destroy the semaphore? That isn't happening for me. Only the parent is doing the semctl(IPC_RMID) with my patch. -- Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Born in Roswell... married an alien...
