On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 7:03 PM Steve Kargl <s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 05:51:38PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote: > > On 10/31/19 5:42 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > I suspect the other BSDs also follow posix. I wonder if gfortran > > > should either apply a mask to the stop code or simply map nonzero > > > values to one of EXIT_FAILURE, SIGQUIT, or SIGABRT. Perhaps, > > > > > > - exit (code); > > > + exit (EXIT_FAILURE); > > > > > > Or "exit (code > 255 ? EXIT_FAILURE : code);". I think EXIT_FAILURE is 1 > > on most systems. I recall that windows interpreted exit(3) as abort, > > which can also be surprising. (But is fine for our testsuite purpose.) > > As I replied to Jakub, I'm fine with the ternary expression. > > I did a brief scan of signal.h, and there is a SIGSTOP. > Depending on whether a user installed a signal handler, > SIGSTOP might lead to a zombie process so I did not > mention it as a possibility.
I'd personally prefer the current behavior. I.e. just let the underlying OS/libc handle it as it sees fit. No need to invent our own semantics here. Tobias quoted the relevant part of the standard, which the current implementation fulfills just fine. -- Janne Blomqvist
