Re: [Patch?] signal(SIGCHLD, SIG_IGN) is against SUSv2

Terry Lambert wrote (2001/06/08): However, if I use signal(SIGCHLD, SIG_IGN), zombies are still created in FreeBSD, which is against SUSv2. I'm sorry that I used this shortening: I know that signal() is implemented via sigaction() in FreeBSD's libc so I used signal() in my description.

[Patch?] signal(SIGCHLD, SIG_IGN) is against SUSv2

There is following paragraph in SUSv2: If a process sets the action for the SIGCHLD signal to SIG_IGN, the behaviour is unspecified, except as specified below. If the action for the SIGCHLD signal is set to SIG_IGN, child processes of the calling processes will not be transformed into

Re: [Patch?] signal(SIGCHLD, SIG_IGN) is against SUSv2

Oops, kid's bugs. Thanks to David Malone ;-) Cejka Rudolf wrote (2001/06/07): if (ps-ps_sigact[_SIG_IDX(SIGCHLD)] = SIG_IGN) is unnecessary. ^ == --- sys/kern/kern_sig.c.orig Wed Jun 6 11:52:37 2001 +++ sys

What to do with bin/7973 in lpd?

I tried to post this question into freebsd-current but without response from commiters some time ago. So maybe in freebsd-hackers: -- Is anybody capable to solve or fix bin/7973 in lpd? I have found the problem is still there (FreeBSD-3.2). Or am I anything missing/doing wrong? bin/7973: Bad

What to do with bin/7973 in lpd?

I tried to post this question into freebsd-current but without response from commiters some time ago. So maybe in freebsd-hackers: -- Is anybody capable to solve or fix bin/7973 in lpd? I have found the problem is still there (FreeBSD-3.2). Or am I anything missing/doing wrong? bin/7973: Bad