On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 02:15:38PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 17:25:57 -0400
> From: Chet Ramey <[email protected]>
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>
> | OK, here's the longer answer. When the shell is interactive, and job
> | control is enabled, the shell prints job completion notifications to
> | stdout at command boundaries.
>
> which is, IMO, yet another bogus bash misfeature. That should
> happen, with the effect described, but only when PS1 is about
> to be printed - precisely so commands like the one described
> will work. Sigh.
>
> There aren't many complaints about this misfeature of bash,
> as almost no-one writes interactive command lines where it makes
> a difference. That doesn't mean they should not be able to.
Yeah, it appears you're right. In a script, this works as expected:
hobbit:~$ cat foo
#!/bin/bash
for i in {0..3}; do sleep 1 & done
for i in {0..3}; do
wait -n -p pid; e=$?
printf 'pid %s status %s\n' "$pid" "$e"
done
hobbit:~$ ./foo
pid 530359 status 0
pid 530360 status 0
pid 530361 status 0
pid 530362 status 0
But interactively, *even with bash -c and set +m*, it just fails:
hobbit:~$ bash -c 'set +m; for i in {0..3}; do sleep 1 & done; for i in {0..3};
do wait -n -p pid; e=$?; printf "pid %s status %s\n" "$pid" "$e"; done'
pid 530407 status 0
pid 530410 status 0
pid status 127
pid status 127
Looks like a race condition, where some of the children get reaped and
tossed away before "wait -n -p pid" has a chance to grab their status.
If I stick a "sleep 2" in between the two loops, then it's even worse:
hobbit:~$ bash -c 'set +m; for i in {0..3}; do sleep 1 & done; sleep 2; for i
in {0..3}; do wait -n -p pid; e=$?; printf "pid %s status %s\n" "$pid" "$e";
done'pid status 127
pid status 127
pid status 127
pid status 127
ALL of the children are discarded before the second loop has a chance to
catch a single one of them. This is clearly not working as expected.
Using "bash +i -c" doesn't change anything, either. Or "bash +i +m -c".
Whatever magic it is that you get by putting the code in an actual
script, I can't figure out how to replicate it from a prompt.
