On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 12:16:04PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>I'm specifically trying not to do the "TRUE" thing, though, since >>AFAICT it isn't always appropriate. > >If you want to SIG_IGN the signal, then it is: "When a CTRL+C signal is >received, the control handler returns TRUE, indicating that it has >handled the signal. Doing this prevents other control handlers from >being called." (note that this is within this process only).
I was going back over this thread before checking in a change to see if I'd missed something. I just realized that I didn't address this concern. Don't know if it matters but... The difference between the SIG_IGN way and the "return TRUE" way is that the SIG_IGN way stops the current process from responding to a cygwin signal but still lets it respond to a Windows "signal". That means that the code in ctrl_c_handle can do its job, if it has to. If we always "return TRUE" in the exec case, then there will be some situations where the SIGINT is not delivered to the rest of the process group since the code in ctrl_c_handler would be short circuited. My SIG_IGN "solution" is wrong, too, though. The SIG_IGN would be inherited by the exec'ed process. Then the execed process would never see a cygwin SIGINT signal. So, I made a minor change to the signal handling code to ignore SIGINTs when the program is a stub. I also thought that I'd brilliantly worked around the potential intialization signal race but after a night's sleep I realize that is not the case. Bleah. I really don't want to use a mutex for such a rare corner case. Btw, if I fix this, I may well fix a problem with CTRL-C and fork() that I've been noticing for years, too. Or, at least I'll be able to convince myself its fixed until the next time I see the problem. cgf -- 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/
