Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020114055140.00b42d40@san-francisco.beasys.com>
X-Sender: andyp AT san-francisco DOT beasys DOT com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 05:56:16 -0800
To: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>, <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
From: Andy Piper <andyp AT bea DOT com>
Subject: Re: Ash spawning win32 programs (was Re: bash/cmd CTRL-C  
  problem...)
In-Reply-To: <020a01c19afa$b09faac0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
References: <4 DOT 3 DOT 2 DOT 7 DOT 2 DOT 20020111022918 DOT 00b63c68 AT san-francisco DOT beasys DOT com>
 <4 DOT 3 DOT 2 DOT 7 DOT 2 DOT 20020111044953 DOT 00b3aa38 AT san-francisco DOT beasys DOT com>
 <4 DOT 3 DOT 2 DOT 7 DOT 2 DOT 20020111065117 DOT 00b454b8 AT san-francisco DOT beasys DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 10:50 AM 1/12/2002 +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>Have you tried the latest snapshot and confirmed that this still occurs?

Yes, this is with the latest snapshot. I actually haven't upgraded past 
1.3.2 because the problems (like this) get worse from then on (using bash 
as /bin/sh being the only solution). I'm just trying to suck your brain dry 
while the issues are still clear in your mind :)

> > I guess I don't understand why this is expected. It always used to
>work
> > (i.e. the subprocess would get killed also).
>
>It's expected because win32 programs don't understand cygwin signals.
>Console programs that appear to understand signals actually get told by
>the OS when CTRL-C is hit on the console.

So I'm confused. I realise that signals are a cygwin (UNIX) thing but I 
thought that  they were written in such a way as to Do The Right Thing in 
this instance. Certainly my experience has been that the Right Thing 
happened at various points in cygwin's history. If you are saying that this 
is not the right thing anymore then I can accept that but just want to 
understand why.

> > >The key question here is : what semantics should apply to a _non
>signal
> > >aware program_ when cygwin detects a signal is generated for it?
> > >
> > >I.e., to pick a couple, for SIGINT and SIGKILL.
> > >
> > >One is obvious, we call (IIRC) TerminateProcess and *boom* it's gone.
> > >Hope your work was saved.
> >
> > Er, why isn't it signal aware. It is AFAIK.
>
>I thought this was obvious. Is it linked against cygwin1.dll? No? Then
>it's not signal aware.
>
>Signals are one of the cygwin additions to the win32 platform.

Hmn, ok. So shouldn't we just do the same thing as happens under the DOS 
console?

andy


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/