Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:45:05 +0300 (IDT) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: DJ Delorie cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: __stub_foo macros in header files In-Reply-To: <199908031356.JAA15480@envy.delorie.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, DJ Delorie wrote: > Hmmm... kill() works, there just never is another program suitable for > tail to monitor. On DOS, yes; but not on Windows. "tail --forever" works just fine on Windows 9X, and even better on NT, where you really *can* rename or remove an open file, then rename/create it back, and have the expected Unix behavior. But `kill' cannot monitor other VMs. > Wouldn't tail just print "no such process" or something? The question is: how do you define the condition when such a message is printed. Or are you suggesting a change to `kill', for the branch where the passed pid is not the caller's pid? > As for the __stub hack, I think it's a hack and I'd rather avoid > adding hacks to djgpp's headers. Then how about changing `kill's behavior instead, so this case would be easily detectable by an application? Right now, we simply return non-zero and don't even set errno.