Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail
From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2025 16:10:55 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID: <vljjmf$g76$2@reader2.panix.com>
References: <uu54la$3su5b$6@dont-email.me> <vljgbg$28o6f$1@dont-email.me> <vljhkg$gvf$1@reader2.panix.com> <vljiml$296n5$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2025 16:10:55 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader2.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80";
	logging-data="16614"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Bytes: 3140
Lines: 58

In article <vljiml$296n5$1@dont-email.me>,  <Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 15:35:44 -0000 (UTC)
>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wibbled:
>>In article <vljgbg$28o6f$1@dont-email.me>,  <Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote:
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>I have to ask at this point: have you ever written a concurrent
>>>>program under Unix?  One that used signals?  For that matter,
>>>>have you ever written a program that used `fork()` and caught a
>>>>`SIGCHLD`?
>>>
>>>Is that supposed to be a serious question?
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>>The only thing that should ever be done in a child exit handler is a wait*()
>>>or set a flag.
>>
>>I think perhaps you should try to write some complex programs in
>>the Unix environment before making such categorial statement.
>
>Don't be patronising.

Wow, that's rich coming from you, my guy.

>I've probably written more unix software in 30 years
>than you've had hot dinners including a fully featured telnetd and numerous
>other servers for work and play. And in the places I've worked which included
>finance/banking, aerospace and government,

"For play" implies things that could be, or are, open source.
So post a link to code, then.

Bluntly, I don't believe that any of this is true.  Your posts
here show a distinct lack of relevant experience and knowledge.

>the advice was almost always NOT to 
>use signals in the first place unless there was no choice - eg SIGCHLD - but if
>you did then do very little in the handler and nothing that could cause any 
>re-entrancy issues.

Earlier you said you should _only_ set a flag in a signal
handler.  Then you moved the goal posts to say that you could
call `wait` (presumably after I posted that example).  How
you're just saying that you should do "very little that could
cause any re-entrancy issues", which is something I more or
less said a few posts ago, but again moving those pesky goal
posts when it suits you.

So which is it?

>I suspect its you who needs a bit more practice at writing large multi process
>and multi threaded applications.

*shrug* Feel free to look up some things that I've written, if
you like.  Perhaps you'll learn something.

	- Dan C.