From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from math.gatech.edu (euclid.skiles.gatech.edu [130.207.146.50]) by werple.net.au (8.7/8.7.1) with SMTP id FAA19843 for <mason@werple.mira.net.au>; Fri, 17 Nov 1995 05:46:52 +1100 (EST)
Received: by math.gatech.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA03608; Thu, 16 Nov 1995 13:29:12 -0500
Resent-Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 13:25:32 -0500
Old-Return-Path: <coleman@math.gatech.edu>
Message-Id: <199511161825.NAA27010@redwood.skiles.gatech.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.4 10/10/95
To: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu
Subject: Re: Pid or not pid 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 16 Nov 1995 16:57:47 +0100."
             <9511161557.AA20201@sgi.ifh.de> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 13:25:32 -0500
From: Richard Coleman <coleman@math.gatech.edu>
Resent-Message-Id: <"csWlA2.0.Iu.tBugm"@euclid>
Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu
X-Mailing-List: <zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu> archive/latest/620
X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu

> Some of the code in execcmd() is getting executed in the parent rather
> than the child, presumably since the last rearrangement... in
> particular, nice(5) is getting called if fork() returned a non-zero
> pid, i.e. in the parent (line 1350 of exec.c).  This means each time a
> background process is forked, the parent shell has a lower priority.
> This may be a good way to deal with process hogs, but I don't think
> it's what's intended.

err...  No I didn't intend that.  But maybe we should leave it
as an option :-)

rc