Re: Wanted: bash enhancement... non-blocking 'wait'

2010-09-03 Thread Chet Ramey
On 9/2/10 6:44 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote: > I wanted to check in and see if there was a chance of this feature being > accepted upstream before I spent any time on it... so here goes. > > The "wait [n]" command is handy, but would be even handier is: > > wait [[-a] n] > > instead, which asy

Re: Wanted: bash enhancement... non-blocking 'wait'

2010-09-03 Thread Dennis Williamson
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote: >  On 9/3/10 10:44 AM, Eric Blake wrote: >> >> On 09/02/2010 04:44 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote: >>> >>> I wanted to check in and see if there was a chance of this feature being >>> accepted upstream before I spent any time on it... so here

Re: Wanted: bash enhancement... non-blocking 'wait'

2010-09-03 Thread Philip Prindeville
On 9/3/10 10:44 AM, Eric Blake wrote: On 09/02/2010 04:44 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote: I wanted to check in and see if there was a chance of this feature being accepted upstream before I spent any time on it... so here goes. The "wait [n]" command is handy, but would be even handier is: wait

Re: Wanted: bash enhancement... non-blocking 'wait'

2010-09-03 Thread Eric Blake
On 09/02/2010 04:44 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote: I wanted to check in and see if there was a chance of this feature being accepted upstream before I spent any time on it... so here goes. The "wait [n]" command is handy, but would be even handier is: wait [[-a] n] instead, which asynchronously

Re: small patch for signames.c

2010-09-03 Thread Chet Ramey
On 9/2/10 4:49 PM, Stefan Teleman wrote: > Hi! > > I'd like to submit the attached small patch for bash, for > ${top_srcdir}/support/signames.c. The patch is based on bash 4.1. The patch > is specific to Solaris (SIGJVM1 and SIGJVM2). Thanks for the update. Chet -- ``The lyf so short, the craf

Wanted: bash enhancement... non-blocking 'wait'

2010-09-03 Thread Philip Prindeville
I wanted to check in and see if there was a chance of this feature being accepted upstream before I spent any time on it... so here goes. The "wait [n]" command is handy, but would be even handier is: wait [[-a] n] instead, which asynchronously checks to see if process 'n' has completed. I.

small patch for signames.c

2010-09-03 Thread Stefan Teleman
Hi! I'd like to submit the attached small patch for bash, for ${top_srcdir}/support/signames.c. The patch is based on bash 4.1. The patch is specific to Solaris (SIGJVM1 and SIGJVM2). Thank you very much! --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman Oracle USA Corporation stefan.tele...@oracle.com --- suppo