Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Re: signal weirdness
- X-seq: zsh-workers 2396
- From: Zefram <zefram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: schaefer@xxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: signal weirdness
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 18:03:01 +0000 (GMT)
- Cc: zefram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <961113094120.ZM29104@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> from "Bart Schaefer" at Nov 13, 96 09:41:19 am
> /* If the foreground job got a signal, pretend we got it, too. */
>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 see the problem with just ignoring the situation, in the case
of key-generated interrupts. If the user wants to kill a program *and*
have the shell process a SIGINT handler, e can press ^C twice. HUP is
the only one that we really need to handle specially.
>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.
Shouldn't it be only INT, QUIT and HUP? I can't see any others that
could justifiably be treated this way.
> 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.
It is very annoying. It seems like the shell is going out of its way
to cause inconvenience: without that code it would be easy to
distinguish between an external program crashing and the shell
What does POSIX say about all of this?
Messages sorted by: