Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.glorb.com!usenet.stanford.edu!not-for-mail From: Chet Ramey Newsgroups: gnu.bash.bug Subject: Re: Want way to run background processes with SIGINT unignored Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 17:53:44 -0400 Organization: ITS, Case Western Reserve University Lines: 40 Approved: bug-bash@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <22040.2725.561993.552660@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <561951D3.30606@case.edu> <561972C2.2030507@tlinx.org> Reply-To: chet.ramey@case.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: lists.gnu.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: usenet.stanford.edu 1444514050 29853 208.118.235.17 (10 Oct 2015 21:54:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: action@cs.stanford.edu Cc: bug-bash@gnu.org, Ian Jackson , chet.ramey@case.edu To: Linda Walsh Envelope-to: bug-bash@gnu.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 In-Reply-To: <561972C2.2030507@tlinx.org> X-Junkmail-Whitelist: YES (by domain whitelist at mpv1.tis.cwru.edu) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-Received-From: 129.22.105.36 X-BeenThere: bug-bash@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports for the GNU Bourne Again SHell List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: csiph.com gnu.bash.bug:11608 On 10/10/15 4:19 PM, Linda Walsh wrote: > Chet Ramey wrote: >> On 10/9/15 2:42 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: >>> >>> However, it would be very easy for bash to provide an option (via `set >>> -o' perhaps) to disable this behaviour. That is, to allow SIGINT to >>> be delivered normally to child processes. >> >> I'm restricting non-standard options to `shopt' to avoid any possible >> conflict with future posix changes. > --- > Thats a straw-man excuse if I ever heard one: use a "bash_" > prefix to any new options. But, still, if you think even that > that might collide w/future posix choices, then don't use shopt > at all: use "bashopt" with bash-defined options and usage. > Either way, that should allay your worries on that front. That's a fairly impressive misunderstanding. I'm talking about adding options to `shopt', which is not standardized and specific to bash, instead of adding the `set -o' option Ian requested because I'm leaving the `set -o' namespace to Posix. >>> With such an option, scripts which run on modern systems and which >>> attempt to parallelise their work, would be able to arrange that ^C >>> properly cleans up the whole process group, rather than leaving the >>> background tasks running (doing needless work and perhaps causing >>> lossage). > ---- > I pointed this out as a serious regression in 4.3 as bash > makes steps to really screw up async/realtime children handling > work in: This really doesn't have anything to do with what Ian is talking about. -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU chet@case.edu http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/