On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Johannes Sixt j.s...@viscovery.net wrote:
Am 6/9/2013 22:31, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
I'm a little negative on handling just SIGTERM. That would make the test
pass, but does it really address the overall issue? To me, the
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
I'm a little negative on handling just SIGTERM. That would make the test
pass, but does it really address the overall issue? To me, the
usefulness is having exit values with consistent meanings.
Yes. Unless the goal is to give Windows port pratically the same
Am 6/9/2013 22:31, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
I'm a little negative on handling just SIGTERM. That would make the test
pass, but does it really address the overall issue? To me, the
usefulness is having exit values with consistent meanings.
Yes. Unless the
On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 12:12:52PM +0200, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
Yeah, if it were mingw_raise responsible for this, I would suggest using
the POSIX shell 128+sig instead. We could potentially check for
SIG_DFL[1] mingw_raise and intercept and exit there. I don't know if
that would create
Am 6/6/2013 19:40, schrieb Jeff King:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:21:47AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
The particular deficiency is that when a signal is raise()d whose SIG_DFL
action will cause process death (SIGTERM in this case), the
implementation of raise() just calls exit(3).
After a
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:21:47AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
The particular deficiency is that when a signal is raise()d whose SIG_DFL
action will cause process death (SIGTERM in this case), the
implementation of raise()
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Johannes Sixt j.s...@viscovery.net wrote:
Am 6/7/2013 12:12, schrieb Erik Faye-Lund:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:21:47AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
The particular deficiency is that when a signal
Am 6/7/2013 14:00, schrieb Erik Faye-Lund:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Johannes Sixt j.s...@viscovery.net wrote:
Am 6/7/2013 12:12, schrieb Erik Faye-Lund:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:21:47AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
The
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Johannes Sixt j.s...@viscovery.net wrote:
Am 6/7/2013 14:00, schrieb Erik Faye-Lund:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Johannes Sixt j.s...@viscovery.net wrote:
Am 6/7/2013 12:12, schrieb Erik Faye-Lund:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net
Am 6/7/2013 14:46, schrieb Erik Faye-Lund:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Johannes Sixt j.s...@viscovery.net wrote:
Am 6/7/2013 14:00, schrieb Erik Faye-Lund:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Johannes Sixt j.s...@viscovery.net wrote:
Am 6/7/2013 12:12, schrieb Erik Faye-Lund:
diff --git
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Johannes Sixt j.s...@viscovery.net wrote:
Am 6/7/2013 14:46, schrieb Erik Faye-Lund:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Johannes Sixt j.s...@viscovery.net wrote:
Am 6/7/2013 14:00, schrieb Erik Faye-Lund:
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Johannes Sixt
From: Johannes Sixt j...@kdbg.org
The test case depends on that test-sigchain can commit suicide by a call
to raise(SIGTERM) in a way that run-command.c::wait_or_whine() can detect
as death through a signal. There are no POSIX signals on Windows, and a
sufficiently close emulation is not
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 08:34:41AM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
From: Johannes Sixt j...@kdbg.org
The test case depends on that test-sigchain can commit suicide by a call
to raise(SIGTERM) in a way that run-command.c::wait_or_whine() can detect
as death through a signal. There are no POSIX
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 01:41:05AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
Thanks. I wasn't quite clear on how the signal handling worked on
Windows, but from your description, I agree there is not any point in
running the test at all.
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 01:41:05AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
Thanks. I wasn't quite clear on how the signal handling worked on
Windows, but from your description, I agree there is not any point in
running the test at all.
Shouldn't we clarify that
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 10:21:47AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
The particular deficiency is that when a signal is raise()d whose SIG_DFL
action will cause process death (SIGTERM in this case), the
implementation of raise() just calls exit(3).
After a bit of web searching, it seems to me
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
If somebody wants to write a note somewhere in the git
documentation, that's fine with me, but I'm not clear on exactly
what it would even say.
I agree with both points. I can suggest
17 matches
Mail list logo
