* Michael Stone said: > On Sun, Aug 22, 1999 at 01:13:52AM -0400, Justin Wells wrote: > > At any rate--your suggestion got me thinking, and there MAY be other > > possibilities here. All of them involve trade-offs: > > > > #1-- sash could try harder to ensure that an "exec" succeeds before > > it allows itself to exit. for example, instead of exec, it could > > fork and exec, and then look for signs the new process was > > healthy before quitting. > > Signs such as...? You'd basically need to turn sash into a debugger so Either checking the /proc/childpid/ for existence or using one of the wait*() family of functions as Nathaniel did in his patch. > that it could trap signals generated in a child process. I maintain that > doing so adds too much complexity to what is supposed to be an > _emergency shell_. Noo... it's not complex at all. See the Nathaniel's patch. > > with an error for some reason. this could have subtle implications > > which haven't occurred to me > > The bourne shell's return code is based on the return code of the last > process run. Not a really reliable indicator... And dynamic loader returns 127 in case dynamic bindings fail. That can be used with much reliability for the test. Bash doesn't have such exit code. marek
Attachment:
pgpij8gwHZ4Zu.pgp
Description: PGP signature