Re: SIGCHLD trap in a shell

2017-04-25 Thread Chet Ramey
On 4/25/17 9:15 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2017-04-25 23:49:56 +0200, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 03:21:24PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >>> I wonder how the following script is supposed to behave. >> >>> The POSIX spec seems ambiguous about SIGCHLD trap in a shell. It

Re: SIGCHLD trap in a shell

2017-04-25 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On 2017-04-26 06:12:25 +0700, Robert Elz wrote: > Date:Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:21:24 +0200 > From:Vincent Lefevre > Message-ID: <20170425132124.ga7...@cventin.lip.ens-lyon.fr> > > I see Jillles has said much the same thing while I was preparing >

Re: SIGCHLD trap in a shell

2017-04-25 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On 2017-04-25 16:00:54 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > Only bash, ksh93 and zsh document what happens concerning SIGCHLD traps. > > Do you believe every shell should document SIGCHLD? > Wouldn't it be sufficient if SIGCHLD is handled the same

Re: SIGCHLD trap in a shell

2017-04-25 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On 2017-04-25 23:49:56 +0200, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 03:21:24PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > I wonder how the following script is supposed to behave. > > > The POSIX spec seems ambiguous about SIGCHLD trap in a shell. It says: > > "[...] a signal specified using a

Re: SIGCHLD trap in a shell

2017-04-25 Thread Robert Elz
Date:Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:21:24 +0200 From:Vincent Lefevre Message-ID: <20170425132124.ga7...@cventin.lip.ens-lyon.fr> I see Jillles has said much the same thing while I was preparing this, but ... | I wonder how the following script is

Re: SIGCHLD trap in a shell

2017-04-25 Thread Jilles Tjoelker
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 03:21:24PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > I wonder how the following script is supposed to behave. > The POSIX spec seems ambiguous about SIGCHLD trap in a shell. It says: > "[...] a signal specified using a symbolic name, without the SIG prefix, > as listed in the tables

Re: SIGCHLD trap in a shell

2017-04-25 Thread Joerg Schilling
Joerg Schilling wrote: > From my interpretation, only: > > dash, bosh (the POSIXyfied Bourne Shell), mksh and yash > > and probably zsh > > work as expected. BTW: I should have mentioned that this test cannot be done with the original Bourne Shell, as

Re: SIGCHLD trap in a shell

2017-04-25 Thread Joerg Schilling
Vincent Lefevre wrote: > I wonder how the following script is supposed to behave. > > The POSIX spec seems ambiguous about SIGCHLD trap in a shell. It says: > "[...] a signal specified using a symbolic name, without the SIG prefix, > as listed in the tables of signal

SIGCHLD trap in a shell

2017-04-25 Thread Vincent Lefevre
I wonder how the following script is supposed to behave. The POSIX spec seems ambiguous about SIGCHLD trap in a shell. It says: "[...] a signal specified using a symbolic name, without the SIG prefix, as listed in the tables of signal names in the header defined in XBD Headers"; there, SIGCHLD