home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 18:49:10 -0500
- From: "Nicholas S Castellano" <entropy@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>
- To: nox@jelal.north.de
- In-Reply-To: Juergen Lock's message of Thu, 3 Mar 94 19:58:24 CET <9403031858.AA00174@jelal.north.de>
- Subject: another 1.10 job control bug?
-
- > i think the problem was when there are several processes in a group the
- >leader isn't always the one that exits last, and then you could no longer
- >signal the others from the terminal after that. (^c, ^z, ...) of course
- >you could say the parent should always catch SIGCHLD and then TIOCSPGRP
- >whenever the first process in a pipe (for example) exited but somehow i
- >doubt thats a real solution... (although i did put such a hack in ksh
- >first... :)
-
- That is exactly the problem, but I'm not sure I like the proposed
- solution.
-
- Is there any situation where a process group leader exits and you
- still want processes in that group to be allowed to access the tty?
- My brain gets tied up in knots when I try to follow what POSIX says
- about this sort of thing, especially since POSIX constantly refers to
- sessions and MiNT doesn't have sessions. But I *think* that once the
- process group leader has exited, all remaining processes in that
- process group should be denied access to the terminal (by getting EIO
- in response to any attempted read or write). But MiNT doesn't have
- EIO currently, and I'm not sure how programs that aren't expecting it
- will respond if it is suddenly added.
-
- Am I making any sense? Maybe we really need to add the concept of a
- session to MiNT in order to get job control working in a sane manner...
-
- --
- entropy -- it's not just a good idea, it's the second law.
- Personal mail: entropy@gnu.ai.mit.edu
- MiNT library mail: entropy@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu
- "what do you have against octal?" -jrb
-
-