From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Sun Oct 30 22:06:38 2005 X-Original-To: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de Delivered-To: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de Subject: Re: [MiNT] pexit, pwaitpid and return values From: Evan Langlois To: Odd Skancke Cc: MiNT List In-Reply-To: <1130710815.5390.29.camel@linuxbox> References: <1130541303.5390.19.camel@linuxbox> <1130625612.5390.27.camel@linuxbox> <1130696192.29858.10.camel@taro.coolrunningconcepts.com> <1130710815.5390.29.camel@linuxbox> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 15:03:27 -0600 Message-Id: <1130706207.29858.20.camel@taro.coolrunningconcepts.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - esc14.midphase.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - fishpool.com X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - CoolRunningConcepts.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-To: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: Evan@CoolRunningConcepts.com Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at relay.boerde.de X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on relay.boerde.de X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.9 tagged_above=-50.5 required=7.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_01, RCVD_IN_SORBS X-Spam-Level: * On Sun, 2005-10-30 at 22:20 +0000, Odd Skancke wrote: > If you mean me, yes I did see those. But I feel like I'm on thin ice > regarding this, I have never used any of the calls in question here and > dont dare to change anything whithout being 100% sure. I've not used the MiNT versions, at least not in a LONG LONG time, but I've used the Unix equivalents, which is what the calls are designed to support, and studied the documentation on the calls. I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks of it, or by all means suggest another method thats cleaner!