From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: delete-process bug Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 00:24:30 +0300 Message-ID: References: <87k69eyddj.fsf@lrde.org> <87fyj0r41g.fsf@lrde.org> <20060524112846.GA12046@agmartin.aq.upm.es> <87bqtmjrsh.fsf_-_@lrde.org> <87odxjakox.fsf@lrde.org> <8764jrlewm.fsf@lrde.org> <87pshyqgtd.fsf@lrde.org> <87fyiuq9t5.fsf@lrde.org> <877j45rj3w.fsf@lrde.org> <87k684y4uz.fsf@lrde.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1148937962 32381 80.91.229.2 (29 May 2006 21:26:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 21:26:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: agustin.martin@hispalinux.es, emacs-devel@gnu.org, storm@cua.dk Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon May 29 23:26:00 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FkpEo-0005XP-2n for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 29 May 2006 23:25:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FkpEn-0002fE-HJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 29 May 2006 17:25:21 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FkpE3-0002Ai-Qr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 May 2006 17:24:36 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FkpE1-00027O-IT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 May 2006 17:24:35 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FkpE1-00026w-6G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 May 2006 17:24:33 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.114.186.66] (helo=romy.inter.net.il) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FkpJf-0007lK-AE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 May 2006 17:30:23 -0400 Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-57-170.inter.net.il [80.230.57.170]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id ESJ81131 (AUTH halo1); Tue, 30 May 2006 00:24:30 +0300 (IDT) Original-To: michael.cadilhac@lrde.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Micha=EBl?= Cadilhac) In-reply-to: <87k684y4uz.fsf@lrde.org> (michael.cadilhac@lrde.org) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:55449 Archived-At: > From: michael.cadilhac@lrde.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Micha=EBl?= Cadilhac) > Cc: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm), agustin.martin@hispalinux.es, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 22:04:52 +0200 > > >> But... if MS-Windows does not support SIGCHLD (or SIGCLD), how does > >> emacs detect process termination on MS-Windows?? > > > > It uses a Windows specific API to probe for subprocess termination, > > and when that tells us that a child process terminated, we call the > > signal handler by hand. > > So, is there a case in which the deleted_pid list is not necessary, > and in which we should not install the mechanism (to avoid leaks as > well as unnecessary processing) ? > > It seems that the guard we put (#ifdef SIGCHLD) was not the right > thing to do, isn't it ? Sorry, I don't know: I didn't track this thread, so I'm not sure I even understand the question. If there's a message or two (as opposed to the whole thread) which I could read to figure out what are you asking about, please tell what that message is, and I will try to answer your questions.