This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: More details about the tmux 2.0 regression
- From: Achim Gratz <Stromeko at NexGo dot DE>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 16:10:20 +0000 (UTC)
- Subject: Re: More details about the tmux 2.0 regression
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAJ1KOAidxNn99KCUNHCbGCvOc=51vz8uzo5zag_0FEYj-yyFPQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150608124159 dot GE3005 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <20150608132103 dot GJ3005 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <CAJ1KOAiz8rV33jmCuLHj9pkLBD+3w3N+7+eEQ6cZwScAkcsNyg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAJ1KOAh5Sqy2Zhag=zddULcZFTa759uyr4uXY_7QGhv85w_2Og at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150608154334 dot GA13266 at calimero dot vinschen dot de>
Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin <at> cygwin.com> writes:
> > One question though, would it be possible to return executable name
> > instead of <defunct> for non-Cygwin processes?
> That should work, it just needs implementing.
> However, I'm just mulling over another idea. It's probably even
> possible to return the comand line and cwd, as long as the calling
> process (cat) has permission to open a handle to the requested process.
> I'll toy around with this a bit...
Does that mean that top would finally be able to show Windows processes as well?
On another front, I've recently uÃstreamed a patch for a Perl distribution
to use /proc/pid/statm because ps from Cygwin doesn't implement a switch to
show the vmsize information. The maintainer of said distribution said he
was expecting a BSD ps before anything else and didn't like the Linux /proc
interface a lot, but it seems we might want to move to a more modern ps
implementation (Linux ps uses /proc under the hood, AFAIK) when the
underlying functionality in Cygwin has that covered.