>I'll look at changing that Thank you. I agree, making traps behave the same after an exec failure as after any other failed builtin is a better course of action. It will make the trap facility stronger. execve failures are not that uncommon, and are hard to predict in advance. execve(2) man page lists 24 failure conditions! Since they can't predict exec failures, scripts that use traps and must handle exec failures will have to save the traps before pretty much every call to exec that takes a command name. This is quite a bit of work to put on bash users. On the other hand, not doing this will lead to subtle bugs where cleanup code will suddenly not run, or processes unexpectedly catch signals that have been previously blocked.
-Mark On Friday, October 8, 2021, 08:02:31 AM PDT, Chet Ramey <chet.ra...@case.edu> wrote: On 10/1/21 2:16 PM, Mark March wrote: > Ok, thank you for clarifying. There is nothing in the documentation about > this behavior as far as I can tell. I would suggest adding a line about traps > getting reset after a failed exec to the paragraph on 'execfail'. I think it will be a cleaner fix, and more intuitive, to make sure the traps are preserved across a failed `exec'. I'll look at changing that behavior. Chet -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU c...@case.edu http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/
