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
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
>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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