Bug 83417 - emacs reports incorrect process exit status
emacs reports incorrect process exit status
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Product: Red Hat Raw Hide
Classification: Retired
Component: kernel (Show other bugs)
1.0
All Linux
medium Severity high
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Arjan van de Ven
Brian Brock
:
Depends On:
Blocks: 79578
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2003-02-03 22:10 EST by Jonathan Kamens
Modified: 2007-04-18 12:50 EDT (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2003-02-19 22:45:27 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Jonathan Kamens 2003-02-03 22:10:20 EST
I updated to the current Raw Hide earlier today.  That means glibc-2.3.1-40 and
emacs-21.2-30, among other things.

Emacs is now claiming that a process exited with status 1 when in fact it exited
with status 5.  Try this....

1) Create a file "/tmp/exit5.sh" with these contents:

  #!/bin/sh
  sleep 5
  exit 5

2) Make it executable.

3) Define and run this function:

  (defun test-exit-status ()
    (interactive)
    (let (process)
      (make-comint "foo" "/tmp/exit5.sh")
      (setq process (get-buffer-process (get-buffer "*foo*")))
      (sleep-for 6)
      (message (format "Exit status is %d" (process-exit-status process)))))

It will display the message "Exit status is 1", when it should display "Exit
status is 5".  This is a pretty serious change in functionality, and it breaks
stuff that I do in Emacs every single day.
Comment 1 Jens Petersen 2003-02-05 00:42:32 EST
Reproduced with kernel-2.4.20-2.33.  I heard that this is known
current kernel bug that "makes many things wrongly show death by SIGHUP
when they exit".  [Doesn't happen with 2.4.20-2.21 for sure, nor -2.27 iirc.]
Comment 2 Bill Nottingham 2003-02-17 20:01:15 EST
Does this still happen with 2.49?
Comment 3 Jonathan Kamens 2003-02-19 22:45:27 EST
It seems OK in 2.49.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.