This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: SIGKILL and TerminateProcess
- From: "Lavrentiev, Anton (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C]" <lavr at ncbi dot nlm dot nih dot gov>
- To: "cygwin at cygwin dot com" <cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 18:37:46 +0000
- Subject: RE: SIGKILL and TerminateProcess
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5F8AAC04F9616747BC4CC0E803D5907D0C40AFEB at MLBXv04 dot nih dot gov> <20131029172205 dot GA1433 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx>
> Sorry but we aren't going to redesign the signal delivery mechanism for
> your use case.
It wasn't exactly a redesign I was asking about; rather an addition
(or an improvement, if you will) for only the case of that one KILL
signal, which is already a special thing in all aspects even on UNIX.
> Cygwin does not guarantee delivery of signals to processes which are
> calling Windows API functions directly. If you do that you should be
> prepared to deal with problems.
Windows Sleep() was just a convenient dummy to demonstrate how SIGKILL does
not kill. CYGWIN lets me access some Windows-specific APIs (the same way one
would do by using some UNIX-flavor-specific libraries), without having to port them
all to CYGWIN first. Such code becomes a real problem in pipelining because
it cannot be reliably managed from other processes (which would all require
modifications to do TerminateProcess tricks throughout; or use the special
CYGWIN command-like utility) where just kill(9) would have been sufficient..
Anton Lavrentiev
Contractor NIH/NLM/NCBI
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple