Don Lewis wrote on Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 01:13:58PM -0800: > On 15 Dec, Doug White wrote: > > > My reading of it is that it is truss hitting itself with the same signal > > that killed the process that it was tracing so that truss will exit > > showing that it was killed by a signal. So this is actually implementing > > the requested functionality. Processes that exit due to a signal don't > > return an exit code. It seems keyed on 'sigexit' whatever that is. No, they return a numeric exit code. But there also is a portion not included in the returned number which indicates that the reason for the exit was a signal and which signal it was. > Hmn, I wonder if it would be cleaner to exec() the executable to be > traced in the parent process and run truss in the child ... I think I misunderstand. The parent is usually your login shell, you don't want that one to exec() anything. Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer <cracauer_at_cons.org> http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ No warranty. This email is probably produced by one of my cats stepping on the keys. No, I don't have an infinite number of cats.Received on Mon Dec 15 2003 - 12:19:31 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:34 UTC