From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-30010-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 29061 invoked by alias); 12 Dec 2011 15:44:23 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
List-Post: <mailto:zsh-workers@zsh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:zsh-workers-help@zsh.org>
X-Seq: 30010
Received: (qmail 11948 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2011 15:44:21 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at closedmail.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
From: Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com>
Message-id: <111212074417.ZM1511@torch.brasslantern.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 07:44:17 -0800
In-reply-to: <20111212100100.0696825b@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
Comments: In reply to Peter Stephenson <Peter.Stephenson@csr.com>
 "Re: Bug in sh emulation" (Dec 12, 10:01am)
References:
 <CAG2tFJy+crpJVg2m1kO9H=fhYUYqPWEuJg+ivDaXCqzqOxa3Hg@mail.gmail.com>
	<111209184747.ZM5000@torch.brasslantern.com>
	<20111210194022.5051f91c@pws-pc.ntlworld.com>
	<20111210232801.7dc8fef2@pws-pc.ntlworld.com>
	<20111211193949.2d58062b@pws-pc.ntlworld.com>
	<20111211202024.07c046df@pws-pc.ntlworld.com>
	<20111211205658.365243c7@pws-pc.ntlworld.com>
	<111211153918.ZM32739@torch.brasslantern.com>
	<20111212100100.0696825b@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005)
To: <zsh-workers@zsh.org>
Subject: Re: Bug in sh emulation
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Dec 12, 10:01am, Peter Stephenson wrote:
}
} the parent shell just lets the new process (whatever it's doing, just as
} long as it's in the foreground) grab the terminal --- if you search the
} code for attachtty(), and ignore the cases where we attaching to mypgrp,
} the shell's own process group, the only other ones in the parent shell
} are special cases.

OK, I'm good with that, but are you sure that the correct pgrp is
ending up attached?  I was concerned about the subshell pipeline not
receiving tty signals before, but now I'm concerned about signals
not going to the previously-attached group from which the subshell
is taking control.

As long as we don't have two forks fighting over who is the foreground
job, we're OK.