storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) writes:

> michael.cadilhac@lrde.org (Michaël Cadilhac) writes:
>
>> (Final ?) patch attached.
>
> Looks good to me!
>
> I wonder whether the pid should be added to deleted_pid_list if SIGCHLD is
> not defined?  In that case, it would be a memory leak...

Oh, hmm... About memory leaks hrm...

In fact, there is already a configuration that would lead to the non
deletion of the PID from the list:

- Call to delete_process,
- Interrupted by a signal before inserting  in deleted_processes_list ,
- Deletion from  process_alist,
- Then delete_process continues by... inserting the dead PID in the
    deleted_processes_list.

I forgot to tell about it in my previous post. Sorry.

Any idea for fixing this ? Putting the insertion in
deleted_processes_list BEFORE the Kill would limit this leak, but not
completely avoid it.


> But I also wonder if any of the async process stuff actually works
> without SIGCHLD ?!?   Are there any systems which support async processes
> but don't have SIGCHLD?

Indeed, I  don't know any system  in which SIGCHLD is  not defined and
that  can  use sub  processes  (are  we  talking about  a  one-process
system ?!).

But it would be cleaner, indeed, to define the whole thing iff SIGCHLD
is defined.

I modified the patch for that (including in sigchld_handler and so
because the list is not defined if SIGCHLD is not), and to make the
insertion in deleted_processes_list before the kill.