From rassilon@lima.mudlib.org  Tue Dec 19 22:29:19 2000
Return-Path: <rassilon@lima.mudlib.org>
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org
Delivered-To: moderator for dev@apr.apache.org
Received: (qmail 30806 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2000 22:29:19 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lima.mudlib.org) (rassilon@198.144.203.196)
  by locus.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Dec 2000 22:29:19 -0000
Received: from localhost (rassilon@localhost)
	by lima.mudlib.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA05623
	for <dev@apr.apache.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:33:28 -0800
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:33:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Bill Tutt <rassilon@list.org>
To: dev@apr.apache.org
Subject: Win32 pid_t semantics
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.1001219143108.5550A-100000@lima.mudlib.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N

Does anybody see the need for someone to create some patches to
threadproc/win32/proc.c to use real PIDs as opposed to the per/process
HANDLEs?

It really isn't that difficul to go from a PID and a process object
handle. (OpenProcess)

Please, cc me in any replies, I'm not on the list atm.

Thanks,
Bill