Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!virtech!cpcahil
From: cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: core files under SV
Message-ID: <1989Nov19.005417.18588@virtech.uucp>
Date: 19 Nov 89 00:54:17 GMT
References: <29843@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Organization: Virtual Technologies Inc.
Lines: 21

In article <29843@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>, bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) writes:
> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) <11616@smoke.BRL.MIL> :
    [example of using double fork to not have to wait for children to die AND
     still not have to worry about zombies...]

> Um, I don't see why this "reaps the zombies".  I thought the `wait(pid)'
> call was added to clean up the aborted child --- here the child is
> wait()'ed on, but the grandchild looks just like the child did in the
> original version.

Because when your parent dies init then becomes your parent.  init spends
most of it's time waiting to clean up orphaned processes.

In the example the child forked the grand-child and immediatly exited
therefore the grandchild was an orphaned process.

-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Conor P. Cahill     uunet!virtech!cpcahil      	703-430-9247	!
| Virtual Technologies Inc.,    P. O. Box 876,   Sterling, VA 22170     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+