Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax!jato!jdickson
From: jdickson@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Jeff Dickson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: HELP with Independant Children Processes
Message-ID: <1991Feb7.191523.24856@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: 7 Feb 91 19:15:23 GMT
References: <1991Feb7.001246.5257@maytag.waterloo.edu>
Reply-To: jdickson@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Jeff Dickson)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 23

In article <1991Feb7.001246.5257@maytag.waterloo.edu> giguere@csg.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Giguere) writes:
>One thing I'm not sure about, though:  does the parent have to remain
>running to eventually do an UnloadSeg() on the child process?  The AmigaDOS
>docs aren't too clear on that one... I would like to know.
>
>--
>Eric Giguere                                       giguere@csg.UWaterloo.CA
>           Quoth the raven: "Eat my shorts!" --- Poe & Groening


	Yeah, I wonder about this too. I thought that when the process died
the cleanup code would automatically do an UnLoadSeg. But from some of my
earlier projects - I remember that the available memory did not increase
after a child process died to reflect that which was tied up in LoadSeg. I
was saving a copy of the value returned from LoadSeg in tc_TrapData (I
think) then explicitly unloading it at the end. This may have been fixed
under 2.0, or maybe I was doing something wrong. Besides, I terribly hacked
my startup code to be very small. Don't recall though axing anything to do
with cleanup.

	I would like to get this cleared up. 

					Jeff