| Title: | DIGITAL UNIX (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEC OSF/1) |
| Notice: | Welcome to the Digital UNIX Conference |
| Moderator: | SMURF::DENHAM |
| Created: | Thu Mar 16 1995 |
| Last Modified: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 10068 |
| Total number of notes: | 35879 |
my customer is developing code under Digital Unix 3.2G, they want to be
able to take advantage of pthreads segment masks. They will not be
migrating to V4.0x for a while. Is there another way to block signals
for child processes in V3.2G?
Thanks,
forough Ghahramani
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9305.1 | SMURF::DENHAM | Digital UNIX Kernel | Wed Mar 26 1997 20:31 | 18 | |
You must mean "signal" masks, not segment masks, right?
If so, there's no major change in signal mask behvavior in
threads between 3.2 and 4.0. Each thread has its own signal
mask (there is no process signal mask). Before 4.0, a
thread sets its signal mask using sigprocmask; for 4.0,
it must use pthread_sigmask.
When you refer to child processes, do you mean threads
instead?
One thing to know is this: the signal mask of the thread
that calls pthread_create is inherited by the new thread.
And the signal mask of the process that calls fork is
inherited by the child process.
I have no idea if any this will help, but at least we can
start a dialogue....
| |||||
| 9305.2 | VAXCPU::michaud | Jeff Michaud - ObjectBroker | Wed Mar 26 1997 20:38 | 4 | |
Also if the only reason you are playing with signals is in order to reap zombie/defunct child processes, and you don't care to check their exit status, etc, look at the man page for sigaction and the SA_NOCLDWAIT flag ..... | |||||
| 9305.3 | thank you | MAIL1::GHAHRAMANI | Thu Mar 27 1997 09:43 | 1 | |
Thanks for the information. I will pass this along to the customer. | |||||