Sean McGovern <[email protected]> writes: > On Wednesday, December 28, 2011, Måns Rullgård <[email protected]> wrote: >> Sean McGovern <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> On Wednesday, December 28, 2011, Måns Rullgård <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Coud 'trap' be used in the meantime to mitigate it, or would that >>> break the test? Is 'trap' considered a POSIX extension? >> >> To devise a workaround I first need to understand what is broken. > > The check_exec_crash function is supposed to run the test in a subshell so > that the SIGTERM that it raises does not cause 'configure' itself to > terminate, only the subshell it was executing inside.
Neither the main shell nor the subshell should be receiving any signals here. The reason for using a subshell is purely cosmetic, to hide a message that would otherwise be printed to the terminal. It should work correctly even without using a subshell. What happens if you remove the () around the check_exec call? > I'm not certain how to test /usr/xpg4/bin/sh to see if it is actually > properly spawning a subshell though. Perhaps with truss(1) somehow? The more interesting question is why this is sending a fatal signal to the shell in the first place. > As this seems to be the only POSIX shell it fails on (that we are aware of > anyways), maybe this isn't worth pursuing any further? I've already set the > /bin/sh wrapper to spawn /bin/bash instead. I don't consider this particularly important, but I'm curious to know what's happening. -- Måns Rullgård [email protected] _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
