From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 16:18:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 16:18:33 -0400 Received: from staff.cs.usyd.edu.au ([129.78.8.1]:9141 "helo staff.cs.usyd.edu.au") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 16:18:24 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 02:06:07 +1100 From: bruce@cs.usyd.edu.au (Bruce Janson) To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: ptrace(), fork(), sleep(), exit(), SIGCHLD In-Reply-To: <20010813093116Z270036-761+611@vger.kernel.org> <20010814092849.E13892@pc8.lineo.fr> Message-Id: <20010814201825Z270798-760+1687@vger.kernel.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article <20010814092849.E13892@pc8.lineo.fr>, christophe =?iso-8859-1?Q?barb=E9?= wrote: .. >Le lun, 13 aoû 2001 10:29:32, Bruce Janson a écrit : .. >> The following program behaves incorrectly when traced: .. >Have you receive off-line answers? .. No, though I did receive an offline reply from someone who appeared to have misunderstood the post. In case it wasn't clear, the problem is that the above program behaves differently when traced to how it behaves when not traced. (I do realise that in general, under newer Unices, when not ignored, a SIGCHLD signal may accompany the death of a child.) >I guess that it's certainly more a strace issue and that it's perhaps .. It's not clear to me whether it is a kernel, glibc or strace bug, but it does appear to be a bug.