in reply to Preforking using share mem

The code fragment doesn't actually send any HUP signal. It does install two (different) SIGHUP handlers though.

I'm afraid I don't understand your question.

Abigail

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Preforking using share mem
by Rex(Wrecks) (Curate) on Jul 24, 2002 at 16:47 UTC
    I think he is asking why the second SIGHUP handler is installed at all. Shouldn't the first one handle all cases, especially since the localized one is identical to the inherited one. I can understand if you got to a point where you wanted to assign different behavior in the second handler, but in the above case it doesn't really make sense to me either.

    Do you know what might be happening here Abigail-II?

    "Nothing is sure but death and taxes" I say combine the two and its death to all taxes!
[reply]
      I dunno about you, but in my Perl die is not a no-op.

      As I said, the installed handlers are _different_. The second one dies, the first one doesn't. The dying one is inside an eval. Hmmmm, smells like an exception handling.

      Abigail

[reply]
[d/l]
        Absolutly right...I was looking at the snippet before my coffee, and at first AM hazy glance they looked the same.

        Thanks :)

        "Nothing is sure but death and taxes" I say combine the two and its death to all taxes!
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom