From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stefan Monnier" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: call-process vs start-process Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:15:42 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <200206261415.g5QEFhT12017@rum.cs.yale.edu> References: <200206241421.aa27980@gremlin-relay.ics.uci.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1025101092 29564 127.0.0.1 (26 Jun 2002 14:18:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:18:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17NDcZ-0007gj-00 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:18:11 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17NDei-0001yS-00 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:20:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17NDcb-000195-00; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:18:13 -0400 Original-Received: from rum.cs.yale.edu ([128.36.229.169]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17NDaF-00012h-00 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:15:47 -0400 Original-Received: (from monnier@localhost) by rum.cs.yale.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g5QEFhT12017; Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:15:43 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 Original-To: dann@ics.uci.edu Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:5216 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:5216 > When using `start-process' the child process seems to be killed by a > SIGHUP from emacs. Is this OK? Is emacs supposed to send SIGHUP to the > child process? > > I believe this is normal. Emacs does not explicitly send SIGHUP. It > probably results from Emacs's closing the pty. Indeed, I think it's difficult for Emacs to fix your problem without introducing others in other circumstances. Instead, `xdvi' should be changed to explicitly ignore SIGHUP after the fork. After all, the same problem can happen if you open an xterm, run the xdvi command and close the xterm after the `xdvi' command returns but before the forked `xdvi' process terminates (which usually wouldn't happen because the time window is short, but if the machine is heavily loaded or if the forked `xdvi' ends up having to wait for something like the Xserver, this can happen). Stefan