On (12/08/09 22:14), Neale Pickett wrote: > Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:14:47 -0600 > From: Neale Pickett <ne...@woozle.org> > To: dev mail list <dev@suckless.org> > Subject: Re: [dev] [PATCH] dwm -- Proper SIGCHLD usage , fix issue with > uncollected processes > List-Id: dev mail list <dev.suckless.org> > > Premysl 'Anydot' Hruby <dfe...@gmail.com> writes: > > > This is much cleaner and portable way of using SIGCHLD. It also > > disallow existence of defunct processes, one which are executed for > > example from .Xsession before (on the end) exec /path/../dwm > > I contributed the original sigchld patch. I like your patch, Anydot. I > wonder what people think of calling sigchld(0) from setup()? This would > clean up any zombies immediately, and install the signal handler. > > Neale >
I'm fine with it, it would catch program exited before sigchld is installed. -Ph -- Premysl "Anydot" Hruby, http://www.redrum.cz/ - I'm a signature virus. Please add me to your signature and help me spread!
