Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 12:29:10 +0200 From: Ganael Laplanche <ganael.laplanche@martymac.org> To: Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl> Cc: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@freebsd.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Our /bin/sh and process group IDs Message-ID: <5667029.Zv9zXsTiuT@home.martymac.org> In-Reply-To: <20220326193950.GA1667@stack.nl> References: <48e49ad0-a12a-d10b-5867-da9736c6c1fd@martymac.org> <9745f2ef-3aae-5548-c8db-5da7d4ce11e7@martymac.org> <20220326193950.GA1667@stack.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday, March 26, 2022 8:39:50 PM CEST Jilles Tjoelker wrote: Hello Jilles, > This appears to be a gray area, and the exact behaviour varies across > shells. For example, with stty tostop in effect, > [...] > > I think it is definitely undesirable for set -m to have an effect > across multiple levels of subshells by default, since it makes the > innermost processes immediately escape from the outer process group > supervision again. > > As it is now, FreeBSD sh has implemented this by ignoring set -m from > a process other than the first process Right. Thanks for those interesting examples & explanations. > A second workaround is to start a new instance of sh. Yep ! Thanks again, -- Ganael LAPLANCHE <ganael.laplanche@martymac.org> http://www.martymac.org | http://contribs.martymac.org FreeBSD: martymac <martymac@FreeBSD.org>, http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5667029.Zv9zXsTiuT>