2022年10月10日(月) 22:47 Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu>: > > 2022年10月4日(火) 0:56 Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu>: > >>> I expect the same behavior of `f1' and `f2' as far as there are no > >>> background jobs. > >> > >> Why? f2 calls `jobs', and so requests information in a particular format, > >> which may or may not be the same format as the default (compact) format > >> bash uses when it reports job status before printing a prompt. > > > > My point is *not* about the format of the output of `jobs', but > > whether `jobs' should print the entries of foreground dead jobs, to > > begin with. > > Yes. I believe that `jobs' should print the status of jobs that the shell > would otherwise notify the user about. This includes foreground jobs that > are killed by a signal other than SIGINT/SIGPIPE.
If you still think it should print the foreground dead jobs after reading the rest of my previous email [1], I'm fine with the current behavior. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2022-10/msg00045.html Then, I have a question: Is there any way to distinguish the entries of foreground dead jobs from the ones for the background ones in the output of the `jobs' command? If not, does it make sense to add a special marker or a status word in pretty_print_job (jobs.c:2040) or in print_pipeline (jobs.c:1939)? -- Koichi
