Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2001/03/18/12:39:02
Hi!
Sunday, 18 March, 2001 Christopher Faylor cgf AT redhat DOT com wrote:
CF> On Sun, Mar 18, 2001 at 06:09:06PM +0300, Egor Duda wrote:
>>Sunday, 18 March, 2001 Christopher Faylor cgf AT redhat DOT com wrote:
>>
>>CF> On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 05:55:37PM -0500, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>>>>This problem doesn't exist in the 2001-Mar-12 snapshot. However, I do
>>>>have an occasional lockup on exit. The startup of the command window is
>>>>much faster, I had more that fifty windows open in less than 30 seconds
>>>>just by clicking on the
>>>>Office shortcut icon.
>>
>>CF> The only lockup that I saw was when I tried to close the window using
>>CF> the X in the upper right corner. When this happens, cygwin seems to
>>CF> be stuck in a "wait for input from fd 0" loop.
>>
>>i see it too. when i start bash via rxvt and then type 'ps -l'
>>bash it prints that rxvt and bash have different pgid's. so when rxvt
>>receives WM_CLOSE message and tries to exit, it doesn't send SIGHUP to
>>bash. so bash doesn't see that signal_arrived, and continue to wait
>>for input.
CF> Well, bash and ps should have different process groups.
yes. they should. but i wonder whether rxvt and bash should have equal
process groups or not?
CF> I'm surprised that rxvt doesn't send something to its running
CF> processes when it gets a SIGHUP.
CF> Is rxvt ignoring the SIGHUP? Does anyone know? I would think that it
CF> would do *something* on receiving this.
no, it doesn't ignore SIGHUP. what it doesn't do is that it doesn't
propagate SIGHUP to it's children. either when closed via 'X' button
or via 'kill -HUP <rxvt_pid>'
Egor. mailto:deo AT logos-m DOT ru ICQ 5165414 FidoNet 2:5020/496.19
- Raw text -