Date:Tue, 30 Apr 2024 10:29:43 -0400
From:Chet Ramey
Message-ID: <958687ce-7e36-42d1-a82e-6101fc777...@case.edu>
| That's an interpretation. I might buy it if the DESCRIPTION didn't say
|
| "When jobs reports the termination status of a job, the shell shall remo
On 4/30/24 10:29 AM, Chet Ramey wrote:
I don't see any reason there should be any difference for a process that
was run in one of the new non-forking command substitution type things, nor
when jobs is run from one of those.
The difference is that the jobs are still in the jobs list here (for
v
On 4/29/24 6:29 PM, Robert Elz wrote:
Date:Mon, 29 Apr 2024 16:07:26 -0400
From:Chet Ramey
Message-ID: <11d627e9-174c-40a8-b827-0a2678d58...@case.edu>
| So the question is what exactly constitutes a foreground job whose status
| has "not been reported."
I
2024年4月30日(火) 5:07 Chet Ramey :
> OK, let's explore this again.
I haven't yet been convinced by the previous discussion [1,2] about
the reporting of the foreground dead jobs in the trap handler, but
this time, the situation is slightly different. The `jobs' builtin
reports the foreground dead jobs
