Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!boingo.med.jhu.edu!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Catching termination of child process and system() call
Message-ID: <14965@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 24 Jan 91 07:20:39 GMT
References: <YANG.91Jan23133130@newyork.nff.ncl.omron.co.jp> <1991Jan24.023750.19569@tkou02.enet.dec.com>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 10

In article <1991Jan24.023750.19569@tkou02.enet.dec.com> diamond@jit345.enet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (Norman Diamond) writes:
>In article <YANG.91Jan23133130@newyork.nff.ncl.omron.co.jp> yang@nff.ncl.omron.co.jp (YANG Liqun) writes:
>>It should be wait((int *)0).
>It should be wait((union wait *)0) in BSD.

No, it's wait((int*)0) in all flavors of UNIX and POSIX.

"union wait" was a bogus attempt by somebody to give names to the
subfields of the status word, but it was never a correct description
of how wait() actually works and has been repudiated by IEEE 1003.1.