Gregory Colvin wrote:
On Jun 23, 2004, at 8:16 AM, Angus Leeming wrote:
... Can you explain why you favour doing things your way? (Assuming that I've interpreted "your way" correctly this time ;-)...
I can't speak for John, but I wouldn't want to pay the price for your signal handler if I'm going to wait for the child anyway.
Right. In light of this and the comments from both John Maddock and John Fuller, I think that it is reasonable to say that waiting for child processes is a complex undertaking. What I propose to do, therefore, is to farm it off to a separate class with an interface something like: class unix_reaper : noncopyable { public: static unix_reaper & get(); bool is_running(pid_t); int exit_status(pid_t); // Invoked from unix_process::spawn(). void register(pid_t); // Invoked from unix_process::~unix_process(). void clean_up(pid_t); private: unix_reaper(); ~unix_reaper(); }; Thereafter, how this class goes about its business is an implementation detail that is independent of the rest of the business of interacting with a child process. I'll code up versions that do it using either a signal handler or using John M's approach and will get on with finishing off unix_process itself. Many thanks for the input, Angus