Re: dh, the daemon helper

[vippstar]

On Nov 1, 8:58 pm, Nate Eldredge <[e-mail]:

[e-mail] writes:

On Nov 1, 7:11 pm, Rainer Weikusat <[e-mail]:

Since programming initially running as this process is supposed to go
away 'soon' (it's only purpose is to start another program), there is
no point in returning memory to the malloc heap.

You're wrong. IEEE 1003.1, 2004 doesn't guarantee that upon exit of
the program the memory will be freed.

That is true, but I'd be inclined to regard that as a defect in the
standard. The description of _exit() is so explicit about the many
things it frees and destroys that it is hard to imagine the authors
intended to require it to do all that, but not do something as basic as
free the process's memory.

Maybe it's for alignment with the C standard. Ie, describing that file
descriptors are closed is OK because fds themselves are outside the
scope of the C standard (but malloc is not)

Nevertheless, every IEEE-1003.1-compliant, or otherwise Unix-like,
operating system that I have ever encountered does indeed release the
process's memory when it exits, and this behavior is sufficiently
well-known and relied upon that any system that did not would be
regarded as unusable, IMHO. Are you aware of any counterexamples?

Sorry, no. Perhaps someone over in comp.lang.c knows of some, I'm
putting followups there.

[CBFalconer]

vi******@gmail.com wrote:

>

.... snip ...

>
Sorry, no. Perhaps someone over in comp.lang.c knows of some,
I'm putting followups there.

You didn't cross-post and set follow-ups. So the originator of the
query will never see your answer, unless you also committed the sin
of multi-posting.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

[vippstar]

On Nov 2, 11:09 pm, CBFalconer <[e-mail]:

[e-mail] wrote:

... snip ...

Sorry, no. Perhaps someone over in comp.lang.c knows of some,
I'm putting followups there.

You didn't cross-post and set follow-ups. So the originator of the
query will never see your answer, unless you also committed the sin
of multi-posting.

You're possibly right. I don't know how to do that with googles
interface.
I'm sorry for this.

[James Kuyper]

vi******@gmail.com wrote:

On Nov 2, 11:09 pm, CBFalconer <[e-mail]:

>[e-mail] wrote:

... snip ...

>>Sorry, no. Perhaps someone over in comp.lang.c knows of some,
I'm putting followups there.

You didn't cross-post and set follow-ups. So the originator of the
query will never see your answer, unless you also committed the sin
of multi-posting.

You're possibly right. I don't know how to do that with googles
interface.

For best results when using Google, I click on the Options link, and
then right-click on the 'Reply' link at the TOP of the message,
selecting the "Open Link in New Window" option - your web-browser may
have a different way of opening the link in a new window.

You can cross post just by adding additional newsgroups to the "To:"
list, separated by commas.
You can change followups by selecting the link labeled "Add followup-to
header" between the To: box and the Cc: box.

[Peter Nilsson]

[e-mail] wrote:

CBFalconer <[e-mail]:

You didn't cross-post and set follow-ups. *So the
originator of the query will never see your answer,
unless you also committed the sin of multi-posting.

You're possibly right. I don't know how to do that
with googles interface.

Same way you would with any other newsreader: enter
comma separated list of newsgroups, and add a followup.

--
Peter

[James Kuyper]

Peter Nilsson wrote:

[e-mail] wrote:

>CBFalconer <[e-mail]:

>>You didn't cross-post and set follow-ups. So the
originator of the query will never see your answer,
unless you also committed the sin of multi-posting.

You're possibly right. I don't know how to do that
with googles interface.

Same way you would with any other newsreader: enter
comma separated list of newsgroups, and add a followup.

I use Thunderbird as my main newsreader. I'm not sure whether a comma
delimited list is permitted. I'm using this message as a test by using a
adding ", comp.unix.programmer" to the Newsgroup box at the top of the
form. However, even if that works, the usual way I do it in Thunderbird
is to click on a new header line, select "Newsgroup:" as the header
type, and type in the second group name in the header value field.
That's quite different from the way it's done in Google Groups.
Saying "add a followup" doesn't really address the issue at all - the
issue is how to actually do that. In Google Groups, you have to select a
link titled "Add a followup-to", which adds a new box to the form where
you can fill in multiple group names, separated by commas. In
Thunderbird, for each group you want to add, you click on a new header
line, select "Followup-To:" as the header type, and then type in the
group name.