On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 19:34:53 GMT, Thomas Stuefe <stu...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> In ProcessImpl_md.c, we have adopted the Posix APIs and semantics for >> process handling. >> I suggest removing the "unofficial" link, it does not include useful >> information at this point and is fragile. >> >> The current behavior always setting SIGCHLD to SIG_DFL is/has been reliable >> and does not depend on the behavior of the parent process. (Good) >> @tstuefe May also be interested in reviewing this change. >> >> The previous sentence mentions Solaris and that should be removed at some >> point but out of scope for this PR. > >> In ProcessImpl_md.c, we have adopted the Posix APIs and semantics for >> process handling. I suggest removing the "unofficial" link, it does not >> include useful information at this point and is fragile. >> >> The current behavior always setting SIGCHLD to SIG_DFL is/has been reliable >> and does not depend on the behavior of the parent process. (Good) @tstuefe >> May also be interested in reviewing this change. > > https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/ seems to indicate that the > "default action is to ignore the signal", which is unclear to me. I think it > means that the signal will not cause invocation of a user handler or abort > the process, but does this also mean that wait and waited won't work? > > In any case, I agree with @RogerRiggs that keeping this behavior is fine. > >> >> The previous sentence mentions Solaris and that should be removed at some >> point but out of scope for this PR. @tstuefe And you also agree that the link should be removed? (Which is what this PR is about) ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21633#issuecomment-2603253756
