On Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 03:12:44PM +0100, Andy Koppe wrote: >2011/4/2 Marcin Konarski: >> Subject says it all. > >Nope, it doesn't actually. Explaining why it's wrong would have been >nice. Here's the relevant bit from POSIX: > >"Existing implementations vary on the result of a kill() with pid >indicating an inactive process (a terminated process that has not been >waited for by its parent). Some indicate success on such a call >(subject to permission checking), while others give an error of >[ESRCH]. Since the definition of process lifetime in this volume of >IEEE Std 1003.1-2001 covers inactive processes, the [ESRCH] error as >described is inappropriate in this case."
Thanks for the test case and the definitive source. I've checked in a fix and am in the process of building a snapshot to fix the problem. It should be available in a few minutes at http://cygwin.com/snapshots/ . cgf -- 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
