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: Mon, 29 May 2006 22:27:56 +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> <87odxhq1ah.fsf@lrde.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1148930905 8806 80.91.229.2 (29 May 2006 19:28:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 19:28:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: agustin.martin@hispalinux.es, michael.cadilhac@lrde.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon May 29 21:28:21 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 1FknPS-0002EQ-SK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 29 May 2006 21:28:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FknPS-0007ux-86 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 29 May 2006 15:28:14 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FknPG-0007uK-1T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 May 2006 15:28:02 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FknPD-0007u7-M6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 May 2006 15:28:00 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FknPD-0007u4-BG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 May 2006 15:27:59 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.114.186.20] (helo=nitzan.inter.net.il) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FknUq-0006pR-Ar for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 May 2006 15:33:48 -0400 Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-247-248.inter.net.il [80.230.247.248]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id DMN57630 (AUTH halo1); Mon, 29 May 2006 22:27:56 +0300 (IDT) Original-To: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) In-reply-to: (storm@cua.dk) 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:55446 Archived-At: > From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) > Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 10:22:13 +0200 > Cc: Agustin Martin , > Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org > > I also saw how MS-Windows handles process termination without SIGCHLD. > Actually, it would do harm if SIGCHLD was ever defined on MS-Windows, > so perhaps we should explicitly add something like this after > all includes: > > > /* MS-Windows has its own way of detecting process termination. > It does not normally define SIGCHLD, but just in case... */ > #ifdef WINDOWSNT > #undef SIGCHLD > #endif ??? The Windows port already defines SIGCHLD (on src/s/ms-w32.h) and uses that definition in w32proc.c, in the fragment I've shown and elsewhere. Where did you see that defining SIGCHLD on Windows will do harm? If it does, we already have that harm.