RE: SIGKILL and TerminateProcess

2013-10-31 Thread Lavrentiev, Anton (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C]
> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-patches/2009-q4/msg00028.html > Don't know if this will help in your situation, but I figured it should > be mentioned. Thank you for the follow up. The idea was to use CYGWIN (and hence UNIX scripting) to control (mainly: launch / stop) applications (whether CYGWI

RE: SIGKILL and TerminateProcess

2013-10-31 Thread Lavrentiev, Anton (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C]
> As the person who wrote the signal handling code, I Believe it or not, I'm well aware of that. > continuing to insist that you need this will avail you naught There was no intention to insist on anything; but to understand why that has been implemented the way it is. And the point has been t

Re: SIGKILL and TerminateProcess

2013-10-30 Thread Charles Wilson
On 10/29/2013 3:21 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 06:37:46PM +, Lavrentiev, Anton (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] wrote: CYGWIN lets me access some Windows-specific APIs (the same way one would do by using some UNIX-flavor-specific libraries), without having to port them all to CY

Re: SIGKILL and TerminateProcess

2013-10-29 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 06:37:46PM +, Lavrentiev, Anton (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C] wrote: >> Sorry but we aren't going to redesign the signal delivery mechanism for >> your use case. > >It wasn't exactly a redesign I was asking about; rather an addition >(or an improvement, if you will) for only the

RE: SIGKILL and TerminateProcess

2013-10-29 Thread Lavrentiev, Anton (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C]
> Sorry but we aren't going to redesign the signal delivery mechanism for > your use case. It wasn't exactly a redesign I was asking about; rather an addition (or an improvement, if you will) for only the case of that one KILL signal, which is already a special thing in all aspects even on UNIX.

Re: SIGKILL and TerminateProcess

2013-10-29 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 03:47:47PM +, 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

SIGKILL and TerminateProcess

2013-10-29 Thread Lavrentiev, Anton (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C]
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 int