On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 09:53:53AM +0100, marco atzeri wrote:
>On 12/13/2011 5:36 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 07:27:23PM +0200, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>>> On 25/07/2011 19.05, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>
"sleeping and waiting for signal" would mean that "bash i
On 12/13/2011 5:36 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 07:27:23PM +0200, Marco Atzeri wrote:
On 25/07/2011 19.05, Christopher Faylor wrote:
"sleeping and waiting for signal" would mean that "bash is not waiting
for input". If bash isn't waiting for input that would explain
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 07:27:23PM +0200, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>On 25/07/2011 19.05, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>>
>> "sleeping and waiting for signal" would mean that "bash is not waiting
>> for input". If bash isn't waiting for input that would explain the
>> problem. However, I would expect th
On 25/07/2011 19.05, Christopher Faylor wrote:
"sleeping and waiting for signal" would mean that "bash is not waiting
for input". If bash isn't waiting for input that would explain the
problem. However, I would expect that bash, in this scenario, to be
waiting for input. I was hoping you'd p
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 06:55:06PM +0200, Marco Atzeri wrote:
>On 25/07/2011 17.11, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:36:58PM +0200, Marco atzeri wrote:
>>> On 7/21/2011 11:43 PM, Marco atzeri wrote:
looking on the mc subshell issue, I found that mc
suppose that the
On 25/07/2011 17.11, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:36:58PM +0200, Marco atzeri wrote:
On 7/21/2011 11:43 PM, Marco atzeri wrote:
looking on the mc subshell issue, I found that mc
suppose that the subshell will receive a SIGHUP
when mc exit and close the master side of pty
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 12:36:58PM +0200, Marco atzeri wrote:
>On 7/21/2011 11:43 PM, Marco atzeri wrote:
>> looking on the mc subshell issue, I found that mc
>> suppose that the subshell will receive a SIGHUP
>> when mc exit and close the master side of pty.
>>
>> Is such assumption wrong or it is
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 01:45:22PM +0200, Marco atzeri wrote:
>On 7/25/2011 1:14 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Jul 25 12:36, Marco atzeri wrote:
>>> It seems that mc is correct in the expectation.
>>>
>>> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/close.html
>>>
>>> "If fildes re
On 7/25/2011 1:14 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jul 25 12:36, Marco atzeri wrote:
It seems that mc is correct in the expectation.
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/close.html
"If fildes refers to the master side of a pseudo-terminal, and this
is the last close, a SIGHU
On Jul 25 12:36, Marco atzeri wrote:
> It seems that mc is correct in the expectation.
>
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/close.html
>
> "If fildes refers to the master side of a pseudo-terminal, and this
> is the last close, a SIGHUP signal shall be sent to the control
On 7/21/2011 11:43 PM, Marco atzeri wrote:
looking on the mc subshell issue, I found that mc
suppose that the subshell will receive a SIGHUP
when mc exit and close the master side of pty.
Is such assumption wrong or it is a missing piece of
cygwin pty implementation ?
- extract fr
looking on the mc subshell issue, I found that mc
suppose that the subshell will receive a SIGHUP
when mc exit and close the master side of pty.
Is such assumption wrong or it is a missing piece of
cygwin pty implementation ?
- extract from subshell.c --
/* Attach a
12 matches
Mail list logo
