On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Philip Hazel wrote:
> Do you get the complaint about SIGCHLD when you don't supply
> local_scan() at all?
No, only when I call popen() from within local_scan.
> > I've remarked them out for now and am reworking my code to use your
> > child_open and child_close functions - which already seem to have SIGCHLD
> > covered. Is that a bit dodgy though as they are not part of the
> > 'local_scan' API?
>
> Yup, it's dodgy. I don't want to publish all the internal Exim function
> specification, because that would make it hard to change them when I
> need to. But if you are worried, you can always copy the child_xxx()
> functions - they are small enough.
Well, it works out a lot cleaner with your functions so I'll stick with
them. Given using such a C stub is encourged in your docs, "If you want
to run code that is written in something other than C, you can of course
use a little C stub to call it.", do you think that adding child_open and
child_close to local_scan.h would be appropriate, or the start of a
slippery path..?
Regards,
aid
--
Adrian Bool | http://noc.vianw.net/
Director, Global Core Network | tel://+44.1925.484061/
VIA NET.WORKS Inc. | noc://+49.203.3093.1111/
