Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>
Newsgroups: comp.programming.threads,comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: Open issues in the specification for fork()?
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 06:56:53 +0100
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <bfdip6F3gjdU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <bfc933Fq0crU1@mid.individual.net> <20131123221330.3816a0ce@laptop.homenet>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net Dz5YLELiu660/LRklIAuSwQr6qlYeUOaXet9KiAp7lXVvanduc
Cancel-Lock: sha1:C9rvXE+n0M9Tdo8q1LkFssZ/tjc=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
In-Reply-To: <20131123221330.3816a0ce@laptop.homenet>
Xref: csiph.com comp.programming.threads:2004 comp.unix.programmer:5019

> This is irrelevant to single threaded programs.  They can call whatever
> they like after a fork().

Unless the processing context will be switched to the implementation of a signal
handler. (Asynchronous-signal-safety should be considered in an other situation
then, shouldn't it?)  ;-)

Regards,
Markus