Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author

Re: signal weirdness

On Nov 13,  2:06pm, Zefram wrote:
} Subject: signal weirdness
} When the segv program terminates, zsh acts as if it had received a
} SIGSEGV (it executes the trap), despite the fact that it was its child
} process that received it.  This doesn't happen if the signal is not
} trapped.
} I'm not looking into this at the moment; I'm not familiar with the
} signal code, and I have more urgent things to do.  I hope someone can
} diagnose this.

Around line 180 in jobs.c:

    /* If the foreground job got a signal, pretend we got it, too.   */
    if (inforeground && WIFSIGNALED(status)) {
        if (sigtrapped[WTERMSIG(status)]) {
            /* Run the trap with the error flag unset.
             * Errflag is set in printjobs if the jobs terminated
             * with SIGINT.  I don't know why it's done there and
             * not here.   (PWS 1995/06/08)
            errflag = 0;
            /* We keep the errflag as set or not by dotrap.
             * This is to fulfil the promise to carry on
             * with the jobs if trap returns zero.
             * Setting breaks = loops ensures a consistent return
             * status if inside a loop.  Maybe the code in loops
             * should be changed.
            if (errflag)
                breaks = loops;
        } else if (WTERMSIG(status) == SIGINT ||
                   WTERMSIG(status) == SIGQUIT) {
            breaks = loops;
            errflag = 1;

This code is intended to handle (among other things) the case where the
user types the interrupt character when a foreground job is executing,
thereby causing zsh to behave the same as if interrupt were typed at a
bare prompt.  Similarly, if the user typed the quit character, or if
the foreground job got a HUP because the tty line dropped, we want zsh
to notice and behave as if it got the signal as well.  But (except for
INT and QUIT), the signals are only interesting if they're trapped, as
zsh normally ignores the rest.

I don't know who wrote the "WHY DO WE ..." question, and I'm not sure
exactly what's being asked.  Why is it the group leader's status?  Or
why is it the status at all?  It's the group leader because the group
leader gets the tty-generated signals, and it's the status because the
type of signal received by the job can be extracted from the status.

Anyway, the code is more general than it needs to be -- there is only
a subset of signals (HUP, INT, QUIT, TSTP, ...) that really need to be
handled this way.  On the other hand, there's no way to make a good
comprehensive cross-platform list of all the signals that should be so
treated, which is why it's as general as it is.  It might be possible
to come up with a list of signals that we know should *not* be treated
this way (BUS, FPE, SEGV, others?) and explicitly omit them, if this
is really annoying for some reason.

Bart Schaefer                             Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts            http://www.nbn.com/people/lantern

Messages sorted by: Reverse Date, Date, Thread, Author