maybe the same way to implent here a fix may do IPC between bashes ? a meta database of stuff used in scripts, then if exec reset meta'ly to none ( undo em maybe .. i have to figure such for my bashlinker project too ) and if that fails restore em back the same meta db can be used in IPC somehowly.. important feature, i bet in 20 - 40 years there wont be bash without IPC, too bad it takes so long..
is it cause posix isnt so far specifying everything for you ? On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 8:34 PM Mark March <ma...@systempad.org> wrote: > > >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/ > >
