Outstanding issues with current DLL?

[Egor Duda]

Hi!

Sunday, 18 March, 2001 Christopher Faylor cgf@redhat.com wrote:

CF> On Sun, Mar 18, 2001 at 06:09:06PM +0300, Egor Duda wrote:
>>Sunday, 18 March, 2001 Christopher Faylor cgf@redhat.com wrote:
>>
>>CF> On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 05:55:37PM -0500, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>>>>This problem doesn't exist in the 2001-Mar-12 snapshot.  However, I do
>>>>have an occasional lockup on exit.  The startup of the command window is
>>>>much faster, I had more that fifty windows open in less than 30 seconds
>>>>just by clicking on the 
>>>>Office shortcut icon.
>>
>>CF> The only lockup that I saw was when I tried to close the window using
>>CF> the X in the upper right corner.  When this happens, cygwin seems to
>>CF> be stuck in a "wait for input from fd 0" loop.
>>
>>i   see   it   too.  when  i start bash via rxvt and then type 'ps -l'
>>bash  it prints that rxvt and bash have different pgid's. so when rxvt
>>receives WM_CLOSE message and tries to exit, it doesn't send SIGHUP to
>>bash.  so  bash  doesn't see that signal_arrived, and continue to wait
>>for input.

CF> Well, bash and ps should have different process groups.

yes. they should. but i wonder whether rxvt and bash should have equal
process groups or not?

CF>   I'm  surprised  that  rxvt doesn't send something to its running
CF> processes when it gets a SIGHUP.

CF> Is rxvt ignoring the SIGHUP?  Does anyone know?  I would think that it
CF> would do *something* on receiving this.

no, it doesn't ignore SIGHUP.  what  it  doesn't do is that it doesn't
propagate  SIGHUP  to it's children. either when closed via 'X' button
or via 'kill -HUP <rxvt_pid>'

Egor.            mailto:deo@logos-m.ru ICQ 5165414 FidoNet 2:5020/496.19