Hi Chester,
Based on your review comments and suggestions about the earlier fixes,
reworked on the fix with pselect()
to block the signal.
Blocked the SIGCHLD signal using sigprocmask().
Attached the reworked fix patch for your kind reference.
Please kindly review the patch and suggest your comm
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 5:08 AM, Thiruvadi Rajaraman
wrote:
> Hi Chester,
>
> Based on your review comments and suggestions about the earlier fixes,
> reworked on the fix with pselect()
> to block the signal.
FYI,
Chet pushed a few changes related to this in commits
564452a3ec9b73a53949325cc4acb9
On 12/3/17 6:07 PM, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> 2017-12-03 17:31:00 -0500, Chet Ramey:
>> On 12/1/17 2:00 PM, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
>>
>>> Also, there's a lot of problems reported at
>>> unix.stackexchange.com at least that are caused by bash not
>>> waiting for the processes started by process s
2017-12-04 08:46:24 -0500, Chet Ramey:
[...]
> Bash-4.4 allows you to wait for the last process substitution, since the
> pid appears in $!, like ksh93.
Thanks,
I hadn't noticed it had changed in 4.4
One major differnce with ksh93 though is that it won't work with
cmd | tee >(cmd2)
unless you
Hi,
Found the issue with sleep execution with bash loadable builtins which
failed to sleep for specified amount of time. The rootcause for the sleep
execution failure found with select() function (in lib/sh/ufunc.c) which
is interrupted by SIGCHLD signal.
Followings are host, reproduction steps,
>From the 2 replies I unterstand that the implementation in bash is
correct due to the „official“ standard.
For myself I have solved the issue in my script - but the regular
expression I developed for my problem are without the 'non-greedy'
operator more difficult to read and maintain. From that p
On 2017-12-04 at 16:38 +0530, Thiruvadi Rajaraman wrote:
> Hi Chester,
>
> Based on your review comments and suggestions about the earlier fixes,
> reworked on the fix with pselect()
> to block the signal.
> Blocked the SIGCHLD signal using sigprocmask().
>
> Attached the reworked fix patch for y
On 12/4/17 1:42 PM, H.-Dirk Schmitt wrote:
> From the 2 replies I unterstand that the implementation in bash is
> correct due to the „official“ standard.
>
> For myself I have solved the issue in my script - but the regular
> expression I developed for my problem are without the 'non-greedy'
> ope
On Mo, 2017-12-04 at 16:49 -0500, Chet Ramey wrote:
> The thing is, bash doesn't "implement" its regular expressions, per
> se.
> Bash uses the Posix standard library functions (regcomp/regexec) if
> they
> are available in the C library when it's configured and built. I'm
> not
> wild about addin
