Thanks for your pull request and interest in making D better, @helmutg! We are looking forward to reviewing it, and you should be hearing from a maintainer soon.
Please verify that your PR follows this checklist:

• My PR is fully covered with tests (you can see the coverage diff by visiting the details link of the codecov check)
• My PR is as minimal as possible (smaller, focused PRs are easier to review than big ones)
• I have provided a detailed rationale explaining my changes
• New or modified functions have Ddoc comments (with Params: and Returns:)

Please see CONTRIBUTING.md for more information.

If you have addressed all reviews or aren't sure how to proceed, don't hesitate to ping us with a simple comment.

Bugzilla references

Your PR doesn't reference any Bugzilla issue.

If your PR contains non-trivial changes, please reference a Bugzilla issue or create a manual changelog.

Testing this PR locally

If you don't have a local development environment setup, you can use Digger to test this PR:

dub run digger -- build "master + phobos#10586"

Thanks, but wouldn't it make more sense to have kill throw ProcessException if it's passed a Pid with pid == terminated? That seems to be the intention of the test.

Thanks, but wouldn't it make more sense to have kill throw ProcessException if it's passed a Pid with pid == terminated? That seems to be the intention of the test.

That is a very reasonable question. Thank you for the review. Is the kill function supposed to be able to kill process groups? Do process groups exist on Windows? Does existing code assume that kill kills process groups? Whether changing kill is better depends on the answers to these questions.

What I am proposing here is a minimum viable solution that makes gcc build rather than fail its build. If changing kill, we change behavior and may break other code that assumes the ability to kill process groups. That seems like a risky affair and it feels unlikely that such a patch would be backported into older gcc releases.

Is the kill function supposed to be able to kill process groups?

No, I think it is designed to only kill child processes, created using other std.process functions.

Does existing code assume that kill kills process groups?

Seems highly unlikely. The unittest in question seems to assume that kill will throw a ProcessException if pid == terminated, but it passing previously seemed to be accidental and contingent on a process group with the number 2 not existing.

What I am proposing here is a minimum viable solution that makes gcc build rather than fail its build. If changing kill, we change behavior and may break other code that assumes the ability to kill process groups. That seems like a risky affair and it feels unlikely that such a patch would be backported into older gcc releases.

True. We can go forward with this change as well, though I would add a TODO to note that the condition may not be what was originally intended to be tested.

Let's see what other Phobos maintainers say as well. @schveiguy ?