This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Bash process remains after I close rxvt in certain ways

On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 03:18:56PM +0000, Eric Blake wrote:
>Charles Wilson <cygwin <at>> writes:
>> Or what *should* be happening.
>> So, I think that in src/command.c, right before exit() is called, rxvt 
>> ought to kill its children -- except I thought exit() should do that 
>> already?
>"Termination of a process does not directly terminate its children. The sending 
>of a SIGHUP signal as described below indirectly terminates children in some 
>"If the process is a controlling process, the SIGHUP signal shall be sent to 
>each process in the foreground process group of the controlling terminal 
>belonging to the calling process.
>"If the process is a controlling process, the controlling terminal associated 
>with the session shall be disassociated from the session, allowing it to be 
>acquired by a new controlling process.
>"If the exit of the process causes a process group to become orphaned, and if 
>any member of the newly-orphaned process group is stopped, then a SIGHUP signal 
>followed by a SIGCONT signal shall be sent to each process in the newly-
>orphaned process group."
>Sounds like you are right - rxvt should be a controlling process, so calling 
>exit() should automatically cause cygwin to send SIGHUP to the process group, 
>and rxvt shouldn't have to do any manual killing.

This is handled in  I'm wondering if rxvt is not
dealing with the SIGHUP that cygwin should be sending to it on
CTRL_CLOSE, though.


Unsubscribe info:
Problem reports:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]