Neale Pickett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Anselm R Garbe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Well, I remember there was a problem with the SIGCHLD signal handler, >> I need to recheck with Stevens tomorrow. It might be that this was on >> some ancient UNIX though. But the double-fork is definately the most >> portable solution. > > I assert that my SIGCHLD solution is just as portable as the > double-fork, and is more appropriate, since the double-fork is usually > only done in daemons.
So what's the verdict on this? Neale
