Re: XCU: 'return' from subshell

Robert Elz wrote: > I was referring to "in the standard". The standard is not static, > things are added (or move from unspecified to specified) as the > implementations converge upon some common definition for something new > or previously unspecified, and things are deleted when they become

Re: Weird possibility with async processes, $!, and long running scripts

Robert Elz wrote: > Date:Sun, 15 Mar 2020 11:39:27 + (UTC) > From:shwaresyst > Message-ID: <1641208969.3419054.1584272367...@mail.yahoo.com> > > | For that purpose both still running processes and zombie processes have > | to be considered as active where

Re: XCU: 'exit' trap condition

Dirk Fieldhouse wrote: > On 15/03/20 16:43, Harald van Dijk wrote: > >...> > > > "Before the shell terminates" is not limited to "before the top level > > shell terminates". If a shell terminates, even if it is a subshell that > > terminates, any EXIT trap action should be run. > > Sure, that

Re: XCU: 'return' from subshell

Dirk Fieldhouse wrote: > You're reading too much into "If". I think it's clear that design > decisions from several decades ago take precedence, regardless of what > anyone would prefer. Eg > > where apparently the case

Re: Weird possibility with async processes, $!, and long running scripts

Robert Elz wrote: > Consider > > bg-process-1 & PID1=$! > long-running-monster-fg-process > bg-process-2 & PID2=$! > > "long-running-monster-fg-orocess" is something like a complete system > build, including lots of add-on utilities (imagine, gnome and all that > goes with it,

Re: XCU: 'exit' trap condition [was:Re: XCU: 'return' from subshell]

Dirk Fieldhouse wrote: > On 15/03/20 07:26, Robert Elz wrote: > >...> > >[I wrote:]>| Is there any suggestion that the 'exit'-like > behaviour of any shell that > >| implements it for 'return' in such contexts is subtly different from > > 'exit'? > > > > Not that I am aware of. exit

Re: XCU: 'exit' trap condition

The wording can be construed the intent is the EXIT trap is always expected to be called, with a SIGEXIT delivered to the context of the subshell and not the parent, and otherwise to the parent for performing the trap in its context and terminating the parent. While a subshell context is

Re: XCU: 'exit' trap condition [was:Re: XCU: 'return' from subshell]

Date:Sun, 15 Mar 2020 14:44:51 + From:Dirk Fieldhouse Message-ID: <55e0c45a-f13c-fa1d-db22-4c0a1b02d...@gmx.net> | > Not that I am aware of. exit is kind of blunt, it is quite hard to | > be subtly different - I suppose the one difference might be whether

Austin Group teleconference +1 888 974 9888 PIN 618 156 403

BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//opengroup.org//NONSGML kigkonsult.se iCalcreator 2.22.1// CALSCALE:GREGORIAN METHOD:REQUEST BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:America/New_York X-LIC-LOCATION:America/New_York BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:-0500 TZOFFSETTO:-0400 TZNAME:EDT DTSTART:20120311T02

Re: Weird possibility with async processes, $!, and long running scripts

Date:Mon, 16 Mar 2020 13:38:58 +0100 From:Joerg Schilling Message-ID: <5e6f7362.u+rw3m3sirjpta0s%joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> | Do you like to talk about what happens when pid numbers are reused? Yes. | This may be a negative side-effect of PID

Re: XCU: 'exit' trap condition [was:Re: XCU: 'return' from subshell]

Date:Mon, 16 Mar 2020 13:45:28 +0100 From:Joerg Schilling Message-ID: <5e6f74e8.xgypuzg5wdvjbgqk%joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> | See my remark about the fact that ksh does not use the same definition of | "return" as POSIX. All shells thatdo not claim ksh

Re: XCU: 'return' from subshell

On 16/03/20 11:44, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Dirk Fieldhouse wrote: > >...> > > Could you explain why you mention Ultrix that comes with a really ancient shell? > >... > Given that the original intention of POSIX was to use ksh88 as a boiler plate for the POSIX shell, it may be an unwanted break

Re: XCU: 'exit' trap condition

Date:Mon, 16 Mar 2020 13:51:06 +0100 From:Joerg Schilling Message-ID: <5e6f763a.y9x1nqg7ahhy4qhx%joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> | > | The environment in which the shell executes a trap on EXIT shall be identical | to the environment immediately

Re: XCU: 'exit' trap condition

Date:Mon, 16 Mar 2020 14:17:54 + (UTC) From:shwaresyst Message-ID: <1213698102.1300844.1584368274...@mail.yahoo.com> | The wording can be construed the intent is the EXIT trap is always expected | to be called, with a SIGEXIT delivered to the context of the

Re: Weird possibility with async processes, $!, and long running scripts

Schwarz, Konrad wrote in : |> -Original Message- |> From: Robert Elz |> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2020 13:47 |> To: shwaresyst |> Cc: austin-group-l@opengroup.org |> Subject: Re: Weird possibility with async processes, $!, and long \ |> running scripts |> |> Date:Sun,

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001318]: Define close-on-fork flag

The following issue has been RESOLVED. == https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1318 == Reported By:nate_karstens Assigned To:

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001318]: Define close-on-fork flag

A NOTE has been added to this issue. == https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1318 == Reported By:nate_karstens Assigned To: