Jeff Trawick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
add "on my system" at the end of the last sentence... -- Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Born in Roswell... married an alien...
