Thorsten Glaser <[email protected]> wrote: |Steffen Daode Nurpmeso dixit: | |>|>?0[steffen@sherwood]$ kill -CONT %1 |>| |>|The kernel does not communicate this to the shell, |>|so it assumes the job is still stopped and thus |>|out of job control. If you “bg”, it should™ work. |> |>I wonder wether the simple patch below (beside its uglyness) would |>be sufficient to deal with the problem? It fixes the particular |>problem, but that's all i can say for sure… | |Hm. | |I had not heard about WCONTINUED, and Unix signal handling
heh! It's in your manuals (just checked)! Now i wonder why it's not already used in the code. |is still some sort of black magic to me in many cases… but I do hate it (i think that's why they're there). Same for exceptions, btw :) |if you run with that patch for a few weeks and don’t notice |any problems I’ll include it. Or if we get an opinion from Only the version test fails. But i'll do so now and do some messing around next week, and will report any problems i encounter. I mean, if it doesn't mess up mksh(1)s job handling (?), then it's a cheap and simple way to stay in touch with child processes, is it? And it also shouldn't hurt if WCONTINUED is defined but doesn't work, as on Mac OS X Snow Leopard. |someone who Knows™ (oksh developers come to mind…). OpenBSD's ksh(1) doesn't seem to make use of WCONTINUED, even though WCONTINUED has been implemented by millert@ on 2003-08-03 (according to git(1) log). In fact, testing the patched mksh(1) under OpenBSD 5.4 doesn't get the event right… Ouch! |In any case, thanks for digging this up and even proposing yup (staggered … and stumbled over it). |a patch! (Let’s just hope it’s a good patch.) In ten years from now i'll make the «Poul-Henning» (as in „you can read my name so-and-so-many-times”). Wow! (Just kidding.) Ciao, |bye, |//mirabilos --steffen
