Le Mercredi 30 mars 2005 � 10:25 -0800, Michael C. Shultz a �crit : > On Wednesday 30 March 2005 10:17 am, zean zean wrote: > > Hi Hackers: > > > > Excuse for my badly English. which is the best form to wait the > > finish of execution of a child. > > > > My idea is: > > > > pid_t chilpid; > > > > while(childpid != wait(&status)) > > ; > > > > Any aid to obtain the best way is very welcome. > > > > PD. Excuse my ignorance and I hope they can guide me. > > > > Bye and thanxs ;) > > _______________________________________________ > > [email protected] mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > Here is how I do it, likely someone will have a better way: > > pid_t pid; > > pid = fork(); > if( !pid ) > { > execl( "/bin/mkdir", "mkdir", "directory_name", 0 ); > } > wait( (int*)pid );
Something like this would be better I think :
pid_t pid;
int ret;
pid = fork();
if (pid < 0)
{
perror("fork");
/* exit(1); if you want */
}
else if (pid == 0)
{
if (execl("/bin/mkdir", "mkdir", "directory_name", 0 ))
perror("execl");
}
else
{
wait(&ret); /* plus return code handling, YMMV */
}
You need to check fork(2) return code or your wait(2) is useless.
Don't mix pid_t with int just for the gain of one variable.
I haven't played with this for some time, I guess it's correct.
--
Florent Thoumie
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
