Re: wait code is fishy

On 11/08/2025 17:30, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> The last part is incorrect. I'm not saying that we know
> that there are no more processes that finished.
> I'm saying we don't care at this point: we know that we are "wait"
> builtin and we got interrupted by a signal.

Ah, thanks for clarifying. I wasn't thinking about wait's exit status. I 
think you're right that it does not matter for that. I was thinking 
about the child potentially being kept around as a zombie process 
unnecessarily until the next dowait().

> [...]
> But actually, my bigger point is that the code is awfully convoluted.

I'm in full agreement there.

Cheers,
Harald van Dijk