Jeff King writes:
> Since this can be thought of as "act more like system(3)", I wondered
> whether the signal-ignore logic should be moved into run-command, or
> even used by default for blocking calls to run_command (which are
> basically our version of system(3)). But it is detrimental in the
jeff wrote:
> This is a re-roll of the pf/editor-ignore-sigint series.
>
> There are two changes from the original:
>
> 1. We ignore both SIGINT and SIGQUIT for "least surprise" compared to
> system(3).
>
> 2. We now use "code + 128" to look for signal death (instead of
>
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 05:39:43PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> This is a re-roll of the pf/editor-ignore-sigint series.
>
> People mentioned some buggy editors which go into an infinite EIO loop
> when their parent dies due to SIGQUIT. That should be a non-issue now,
> as we will be ignoring SIGQUIT
3 matches
Mail list logo
