Re: another 1.10 job control bug?

[Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.north.de>]

Nicholas S Castellano writes:

> > i think the problem was when there are several processes in a group the
> >leader isn't always the one that exits last, and then you could no longer
> >signal the others from the terminal after that. (^c, ^z, ...)  of course
> >you could say the parent should always catch SIGCHLD and then TIOCSPGRP
> >whenever the first process in a pipe (for example) exited but somehow i
> >doubt thats a real solution...  (although i did put such a hack in ksh
> >first... :)
> 
> That is exactly the problem, but I'm not sure I like the proposed
> solution.
> 
> Is there any situation where a process group leader exits and you
> still want processes in that group to be allowed to access the tty?

 oh.  what about pipes?  grep ... |sort,  zcat foo |less ...  (ok less
opens /dev/tty itself but i think still writes on stdout.)

>...
> Am I making any sense?  Maybe we really need to add the concept of a
> session to MiNT in order to get job control working in a sane manner...

 hmm i don't know... do you still expect problems with my new patch
or is it just not posixly correct? :)

 (btw i have nothing against adding EIO, thats a different thing.)

 cheers
	Juergen
-- 
J"urgen Lock / nox@jelal.north.de / UUCP: ..!uunet!unido!uniol!jelal!nox
								...ohne Gewehr
PGP public key fingerprint =  8A 18 58 54 03 7B FC 12  1F 8B 63 C7 19 27 CF DA