[kdevelop] [Bug 399473] [feature] proper exit after SIGHUP

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=399473 --- Comment #13 from Sven Brauch --- Most probably, yes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[kdevelop] [Bug 399473] [feature] proper exit after SIGHUP

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=399473 --- Comment #12 from RJVB --- Quick question: the current code puts the actual signal handler installation in #ifdef SIGFOO blocks. I'm guessing that's for platforms like MS Windows that don't have POSIX style signal handling? -- You are receiving thi

[kdevelop] [Bug 399473] [feature] proper exit after SIGHUP

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=399473 --- Comment #11 from RJVB --- Turns out a non-blocking and clean-enough exit can be achieved simply by calling Core::shutdown() before the actual exit so that's easy enough. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[kdevelop] [Bug 399473] [feature] proper exit after SIGHUP

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=399473 --- Comment #10 from Sven Brauch --- I don't care about the fix for "application can exit when X does not respond", no, and unless it simplifies the code involved I would vote against merging it. The signal handler thing in contrast does sound like an

[kdevelop] [Bug 399473] [feature] proper exit after SIGHUP

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=399473 RJVB changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|NOT A BUG |LATER --- Comment #9 from RJVB --- I guess if you don't

[kdevelop] [Bug 399473] [feature] proper exit after SIGHUP

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=399473 Sven Brauch changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |NOT A BUG Status|REOPENED

[kdevelop] [Bug 399473] [feature] proper exit after SIGHUP

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=399473 --- Comment #7 from RJVB --- Synthetic demonstration of unwanted behaviour: > Xnest :1 & > env DISPLAY=:1 kdevelop5 & > killall -STOP %1 # suspend Xnest > kill -HUP %2 # send SIGHUP to KDevelop As expected this causes KDevelop to block: (lldb) bt all

[kdevelop] [Bug 399473] [feature] proper exit after SIGHUP

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=399473 --- Comment #6 from RJVB --- To get this back to a hopefully more constructive state (and ignoring for the moment whether or not calling Qt API from a signal handler is an issue or not): what would be the best way to make the exit procedure as least blo

[kdevelop] [Bug 399473] [feature] proper exit after SIGHUP

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=399473 --- Comment #5 from RJVB --- Erm, indeed, I saw that be then remained stuck on using SIGHUP, probably because of the added "like almost every other application on your desktop"). Not that it matters, fgrep 'signal(' shows kdevelop-git/kdevplatform/she

[kdevelop] [Bug 399473] [feature] proper exit after SIGHUP

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=399473 --- Comment #4 from Sven Brauch --- I said SIGTERM, not SIGHUP. Now you wrote like 2 pages of text to at least 3 people before simply trying that out locally ... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[kdevelop] [Bug 399473] [feature] proper exit after SIGHUP

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=399473 RJVB changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|NOT A BUG

[kdevelop] [Bug 399473] [feature] proper exit after SIGHUP

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=399473 --- Comment #2 from RJVB --- No, it doesn't, not when running remotely in any case (or when the remote server has become unavailable). Possibly idem when a local server is going down hard, but that's a bit of a corner case. You're right that a normal e

[kdevelop] [Bug 399473] [feature] proper exit after SIGHUP

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=399473 Sven Brauch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED Resolution|---