[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: bash vs. screen vs. SIGINT

From: Samuel Thibault
Subject: Re: bash vs. screen vs. SIGINT
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 00:23:05 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14

Thomas Schwinge, le Tue 06 Oct 2009 23:43:37 +0200, a écrit :
> On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 06:06:35PM +0200, I wrote:
> > There are issues with the bash 4.0 packages, and new Debian screen
> > packages w.r.t. handling of SIGINT.  I don't think that glibc is at
> > fault, but instead bash and screen should be looked at.  Details are at
> > <http://www.bddebian.com:8888/~hurd-web/open_issues/bash_vs_screen_vs_sigint/>.
>     # if defined(__osf__) || (BSD >= 199103) || defined(ISC)

turned into

>     # if defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__) && defined(TIOCSCTTY)
> The setsid call indeed doesn't seem to be needed / is done before, but it
> seems that on the Hurd we also still need the TIOCSCTTY one -- if I cover
> __GNU__ in the #if, then screen works again as expected.  Is this the
> correct thing to do then?

Seems so, as indicated in the O_NOCTTY documentation:

/* `open' never assigns a controlling terminal in GNU.  */
#define O_NOCTTY        0       /* Don't assign a controlling terminal. */

and thus TIOCSCTTY has to explicitely be done to set it.  I believe a
proper fix is thus to add an explicit || defined(__GNU__)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]