Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!pa.dec.com!shlump.nac.dec.com!tkou02.enet.dec.com!jit345!diamond From: diamond@jit345.swstokyo.dec.com (Norman Diamond) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Catching termination of child process and system() call Message-ID: <1991Jan25.022950.10683@tkou02.enet.dec.com> Date: 25 Jan 91 02:29:50 GMT References: <1991Jan24.023750.19569@tkou02.enet.dec.com> <14965@smoke.brl.mil> Sender: news@tkou02.enet.dec.com (USENET News System) Reply-To: diamond@jit345.enet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (Norman Diamond) Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Japan , Tokyo Lines: 25 In article <14965@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: >In article <1991Jan24.023750.19569@tkou02.enet.dec.com> diamond@jit345.enet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (Norman Diamond) writes: >>In article 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. No, it's wait((union wait *)0) in systems that implement the bogus attempt that we all know about. >"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 It's rather disorganized but wait() does actually work in the same disorganized manner, on those systems. >and has been repudiated by IEEE 1003.1. I'm glad to hear that. Unfortunately, some computers aren't running IEEE 1003.1 yet. -- Norman Diamond diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.