[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bug in bash
From: |
Andreas Schwab |
Subject: |
Re: bug in bash |
Date: |
Tue, 14 May 2024 16:20:26 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) |
On Mai 14 2024, Chet Ramey wrote:
> Setting the process group might solve this particular issue, at the cost of
> losing keyboard-generated signals. That's not so bad for SIGINT, though
> people do expect to be able to kill a procsub when you interrupt the job
> using it, but you also wouldn't be able to suspend the procsub with ^Z any
> more. When you're running a job that contains a process substitution, the
> historical behavior has been that you're able to suspend it along with the
> rest of the job. Same with hitting the job pgrp with something like SIGHUP.
But leaving it in the process group of the parent shell does not
accomplish that, which is actually the point of this thread. A process
substitution is similar to a pipeline; it really belongs to the process
group of the command that reads from it.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."
- Re: bug in bash, (continued)
- Re: bug in bash, Andreas Kähäri, 2024/05/12
- Re: bug in bash, Kerin Millar, 2024/05/12
- Re: bug in bash, Greg Wooledge, 2024/05/12
- Re: bug in bash, Andreas Schwab, 2024/05/12
- Re: bug in bash, Oğuz, 2024/05/12
- Re: bug in bash, Chet Ramey, 2024/05/13
- Re: bug in bash, Oğuz, 2024/05/13
- Re: bug in bash, Chet Ramey, 2024/05/14
- Re: bug in bash,
Andreas Schwab <=
- Re: bug in bash, Chet Ramey, 2024/05/14
- Re: bug in bash, Chet Ramey, 2024/05/14