Subject: Re: question about signals and system() and mutt
To: None <>
From: Christos Zoulas <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 07/10/2001 03:57:11
In article <>,
Andrew Brown <> wrote:

>it would be nice if sh was taught not to die unceremoniously like
>this.  the mutt people made sense in their argument.  a quick check of
>solaris and freebsd (as two random base points) shows that their
>versions of sh (all of /usr/xpg4/bin/sh, /usr/bin/sh, and /sbin/sh
>under solaris) do not die under the simple test:
>     % cat > sigs << EOF
>     $SIG{'QUIT'} = 'IGNORE';
>     sleep(10);         
>     EOF         
>     % sh -c 'perl sigs'
>     (repeatedly pound on control-\ here)
>yet netbsd does.

Your argument makes a lot of sense to me. I think that we should look
into fixing this. What does posix say about this?