On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 09:07:28PM -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote: > it isn't called in the parent... that's why I wanted to use > -DNO_DETACH :)
by "parent" I meant "apache parent", not just "that process that forked other processes". > note that -DNO_DETACH from gdb is doomed... setsid() will fail (at > least with my normal environment)... -DNO_DETACH doesn't work for you > from gdb, you just hit your breakpoint before the failure point > > I'll forget about it for now (but I will commit a cleanup of > apr_proc_detach() which won't change the semantics). For the long > term I guess I want -DFOREGROUND and appropriate support in > apr_proc_detach(). I thought about adding a -DFOREGROUND but I guess I convinced myself that it was still just a replacement for -DNO_DETACH. Given this clear use case I'm totally for -DNO_DETACH simply not calling apr_proc_detach() (as before) and -DFOREGROUND calling apr_proc_detach() with the foreground flag. Better to get it right now rather than later. -aaron
