Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 16:50:18 +0100 From: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: cracauer@cons.org, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/bin/sh jobs.c Message-ID: <19980211165018.48435@cons.org> In-Reply-To: <199802110106.MAA00738@godzilla.zeta.org.au>; from Bruce Evans on Wed, Feb 11, 1998 at 12:06:49PM %2B1100 References: <199802110106.MAA00738@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In <199802110106.MAA00738@godzilla.zeta.org.au>, Bruce Evans wrote: > >> (c) #!/bin/sh > >> (while :; do catchint; done) > >> > >> Now there is a subshell. It must be killed by SIGINT. (?) > > > >For me (our sh and bash), the whole script (outer shell, inner shell, > >catchint) is terminated on SIGINT. It's the way it should be, IMHO. > > Actually, it doesn't for your version of sh, or bash. At least for > your version of sh, the subshell waits for catchint, and then doesn't > exit because catchint exits with a normal status. There must be some misunderstanding here. If catchint is a program with SIGINT => SIGN_DFL, all versions of sh (original, your, mine, bash) exit this script (test10.sh from testsuite) immedeatly: #!./testshell echo 'You should be able to end the script with one SIGINT' (while :; do wc /kernel > /dev/null ; done) The first SIGINT kills wc, the inner shell and the outer shell. If you mean catchint to be a program that directs SIGINT to its own routine and not exit on it, then you're right, this loop isn't breakable by SIGINT if the shell behaves the way I think is right. If an application catches SIGINT for its own purposes (i.e. emacs), then - in my opinion - the surrounding shellscript should not behave different when a) the catchint program ends without using SIGINT and b) the catchint program ends and has used SIGINT while it was running. For an emacs user, SIGINT/SIGQUIT are just normal keystrokes that shouldn't have any effect on other programs than emacs. This is the only way to ensure that an application we can assure that system(2) does what the application writer expects if he/she calls it with $EDITOR. And it's the way the SunOS /bin/sh works, not without a reason, I think. Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> http://www.cons.org/cracauer cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de (batched, preferred for large mails) Tel.: (daytime) +4940 41478712 Fax.: (daytime) +4940 41478715 Tel.: (private) +4940 5221829 Fax.: (private) +4940 5228536 Paper: (private) Waldstrasse 200, 22846 Norderstedt, Germany To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980211165018.48435>