Re: Bug in sh emulation

[Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 9,  6:47pm, Bart Schaefer wrote:
}
} I don't see any recent changes in exec.c that would have
} an effect on when a job is made ASYNC.

Unless this?

revision 1.182
date: 2010/08/22 20:08:57;  author: pws;  state: Exp;  lines: +1 -1
28179, users/15314, users/15310, users/15200:
various job and process control fixes

The references to users/15310 should be 15301; I believe 15200 should be
15300?  (I fixed ChangeLog and committed.)

Anyway the change in question is really from 15301, which removes the
ESUB_ASYNC from a bunch of entersubsh() calls.