Re^2: Vague segfault question

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Vague segfault question by ChrisDennis (Sexton) on Feb 04, 2012 at 13:04 UTC
Thanks for your reply. I'm confused now about the use of `kill`. Kill says Unlike in the shell, if SIGNAL is negative, it kills process groups instead of processes. But perlipc says Sending a signal to a negative process ID means that you send the signal to the entire Unix process group. Which of those is true?	[reply] [d/l]
Re^4: Vague segfault question by Anonymous Monk on Feb 04, 2012 at 14:38 UTC
Which of those is true? Both, they're not mutually exclusive :) if you keep reading it also says The behavior of kill when a PROCESS number is zero or negative depends on the operating system. For example, on POSIX-conforming systems, zero will signal the current process group and -1 will signal all processes. See also what perlport#kill says	[reply]
Re^5: Vague segfault question by ChrisDennis (Sexton) on Feb 05, 2012 at 21:07 UTC
The kill documentation seems to omit what the Camel book adds, that a negative process id (not just -1) will kill all processes in the process group on Posix-conforming systems.	[reply]
Re^6: Vague segfault question by Anonymous Monk on Feb 06, 2012 at 08:58 UTC