2009/11/23 Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cyg...@cygwin.com>: > On Nov 23 17:43, Huang Bambo wrote: >> 2009/11/23 Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cyg...@cygwin.com>: >> > On Nov 22 09:33, Huang Bambo wrote: >> >> And there's another quesiton: >> >> The handle of chile process( created by fork ) seems never been closed >> >> bye parent process. Is it need to be closed? >> > >> > I don't understand the question. There's one dangling socket handle left >> > and I know where and why it happens. Other than that, I don't see any >> > other socket handling which is left open accidentally. >> > >> While run my last test code, every time comes one connection, there >> are 3 handle leak( I monited it by Process Explorer( from >> www.sysinternals.com)), one is the chile process's handle, one is of >> "Section \BaseNamedObjects\cygwin1S5-9770bb4ddbd85dca\cygpid.xxxx", >> the other one is of \Device\Afd. >> I mean is there any other leak with those handles. > > The leak is a result of the parent process not calling wait(2) or > waitpid(2) to reap the child process. If you let the process properly > call wait/waitpid, you won't see a leak, except for the current socket > leak this thread is about.
There's some diffirence between cygwin and other *nix: In other *nix with this condition, those ended child process could be list by ps command with <defunc>tag, will you fix it? -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
