On Aug 15, 8:54 pm, björn <[email protected]> wrote: > > I took a look at the code. I can't figure out why the problem occurs, > > but I solved it by using double-fork(). This way, I ensure that MacVim > > process becomes a child of init. Double fork()-ing is often used when > > you want to make sure that the child doesn't inherit anything from the > > parent. > > > Here is the patch I used, let me know if it works for you: > > <http://lpd.epfl.ch/knezevic/setsid.patch> > > Thanks. I'll take a look at it but not before the 7.3 release...we've > had some severe fork-related problems in the past so I don't dare to > include this without some testing first.
That sound ok :) > I don't at all understand these forking issues (indeed I don't > understand why we can't just leave out the setsid() call since this > also gets rid of the problem). Does double-forking have any obvious > negative side effects? There are no negative side effects of doing double forking. It is a useful technique when you want to make sure the process doesn't have controlling terminal, and to fight off zombies the easy way (init will reap them). Can you explain me what is the intention of macos_fork()? What do you want to achieve? I'm trying to understand the intention, to see whether setsid is really important. -- You received this message from the "vim_mac" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
