home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Submitted-by: barmar@think.uucp (Barry Margolin)
-
- In article <16118@cs.utexas.edu> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
- >In article <16068@cs.utexas.edu> thorinn@rimfaxe.diku.dk (Lars Henrik Mathiesen) writes:
- >>I'd very much hope that such an ioctl would include checks for the
- >>termio settings of the slave side: A signal should only be allowed if
- >>it would be possible to write a character on the master pty to achieve
- >>the same result. (And then, why not do just that?)
-
- >Emacs defines C-xC-c in shell mode to be "interrupt-shell-subjob." It is
- ^^^^^^
- C-cC-C
- >defined to send a SIGINT to the process group. Not a control-c, or DEL, or
- >whatever you have your interrupt character defined as.
-
- One problem I've run into with the current implementation is that it has
- trouble when I run a setuid program in the shell buffer. The Emacs process
- can't send signals to the setuid process. I ended up redefining C-cC-c and
- C-cC-z to just stuff ^C and ^Z into the pty.
-
- However, your idea of an ioctl to send a signal to the other side of a pty
- (I assume that's what this is about, I missed the beginning of the
- discussion) seems like it would be just right. Normal terminal users
- sometimes get stuck because a program disables control characters and then
- a bug sends it into an infinite loop. The problem is the multiplexing of
- the keyboard for input to the program and process control. On the other
- hand, when a program is being run through a pty there is no need to disable
- signals just because the signal *characters* are disabled. Ioctls provide
- the needed out-of-band mechanism for process control that is not available
- on a real terminal.
-
- --
- Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.
-
- barmar@think.com
- {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 22, Number 38
-
-