Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Re: zsh 4.3.10 terminates with SIGINT when one types Ctrl-G in emacs under Mac OS X
- X-seq: zsh-workers 27162
- From: Vincent Lefevre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: zsh 4.3.10 terminates with SIGINT when one types Ctrl-G in emacs under Mac OS X
- Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 01:09:30 +0200
- In-reply-to: <090718113509.ZM10405@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Mail-followup-to: zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <090712193623.ZM14823@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <200907131839.n6DIdO6Z003291@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090716162419.GA26179@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <090717222936.ZM8648@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090718101602.GA5392@xvii> <090718113509.ZM10405@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 2009-07-18 11:35:09 -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Jul 18, 12:16pm, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> } On 2009-07-17 22:29:36 -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> } > The point I believe Cracauer is overlooking is that the CALLER of the
> } > shell script may have specified that SIGINT is to be ignored. SIG_IGN
> } > is supposed to be inherited by child processes; but to implement WUE
> } > or WCE, the shell must itself either ignore or handle SIGINT, which
> } > may contradict what the caller has requested.
> } I don't think that the caller should enforce what its children should
> } do. Many programs will set their own SIGINT handler, even if the caller
> } chose to ignore this signal.
> You've missed the point. SIG_IGN is by definition been inherited from
> parent to child, and this is deliberately preserved across exec. The
> parent doesn't *enforce* this -- the child is *allowed* to set up a
> handler of its own once it gets control -- but the mere fact that the
> execv'd program is a shell should not void the inherited signal settings.
> The shell might merely be an intermediary that's going to exec itself
> out of existence, and the programmer of the parent should be able to
> expect that the inherited signal settings make it through.
I didn't miss anything: the shell can still restore the previous
status before an exec.
> } Anyway, even though bash implements WCE,
> Except that bash *DOESN'T* implement WCE, at least not the way that it
> is defined in Cracauer's web page. See below.
According to my tests, bash *does* implement WCE. See below.
> } it ignores SIGINT if the caller chose to ignore it; also when executing
> } a process, it restores the trap to the default behavior, in case it was
> } ignored (that's another difference with zsh).
> And that's a case where I think the zsh behavior is in fact preferable.
Is there any reason?
> } > Further I think Cracauer is very wrong here:
> } >
> } > Do nothing special when SIGINT appears while you wait for a child. You
> } > don't even have to remember that one happened.
> } > ...
> } > Look at WIFSIGNALED(status) and WTERMSIG(status) to tell whether the
> } > child says "I exited on SIGINT: in my opinion the user wants the
> } > shellscript to be discontinued".
> } >
> } > This is plain nonsense.
> } >
> } > Not only does this potentially contradict a caller's explicit request
> } > to ignore SIGINT, but the script should not exit 130 every time any
> } > child exits 130. It should exit only when SIGINT was received *by the
> } > script*. "kill -INT ..." of the child should not cause the shell to
> } > behave as if it was interrupted. Try it with bash.
> } It seems that bash behaves correctly in all those cases.
> Exactly -- which it would not if it followed Cracauer's advice; he's
> wrong, and I'm not going to advocate that zsh adopt the behavior that
> he describes.
Well, after re-reading, I agree Cracauer's advice is wrong here.
But it is fixable and I think that the other parts of his page are
correct. At least, IUE/WUE/WCE are defined under the context "There
are several ways to handle abortion of shell scripts when SIGINT is
received while a foreground child runs", so it is clear that the shell
*must* receive a SIGINT (this is also said near the beginning of the
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@xxxxxxxxxx> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
Messages sorted by: