> > For #2, yes, the semaphores will go away when the last > process holding > > a HANDLE to it goes away. For #1, the code seems to handle > that right? > > > > I intentionally use *unnamed* semaphores to avoid these > problems -- even if the semaphores didn't go away (as Magus > pointed out, if all processes can exit gracefully, this won't > happen), we won't worry about them -- Creating semahpores > will still succeed because there is no existent same named > semaphores will bother it.
Just a point - they will get automatically cleaned up even if the process doesn't exit *gracefully*, as long as it exits. Only if it's hung and won't actually exit will the handles not get cleaned up. This goes for both named and unnamed ones. //Magnus ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly