On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 03:47:47PM +0000, Lavrentiev, Anton (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] wrote: >Hello List, > >I have a question, as to why CYGWIN does not use the TerminateProcess approach >when >dealing with SIGKILL sent to a process (in the manner the CYGWIN's own kill >utility >does when invoked with -f)? Usually SIGKILL is expected to reliably terminate >its victim (let alone it can't be intercepted, hence, does not need any >"handling" >provisions). Yet under CYGWIN, if the point of execution is found as "unsafe" >in the >target process, the signal cannot be delivered quickly. Such as when the >process is busy dealing with a time-consuming Windows API (the dumbest example >is Sleep() ;-), >then the process will not get killed even with SIGKILL. Could CYGWIN please >consider >special-casing SIGKILL to perform something similar to the force-killing of the >command-line utility?
Sorry but we aren't going to redesign the signal delivery mechanism for your use case. Cygwin does not guarantee delivery of signals to processes which are calling Windows API functions directly. If you do that you should be prepared to deal with problems. If you are finding that SIGKILL does not reliably kill a blocking UNIX function, however, that is a bug. -- 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
