GNU bug report logs - #56239
28.1; Cannot send signals by name to inferior process by calling signal-process interactively

Previous Next

Full log

Message #19 received at 56239 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: michael.albinus <at> gmx.de, 56239 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, mardani29 <at> yahoo.es
Subject: Re: bug#56239: 28.1;
 Cannot send signals by name to inferior process by calling
 signal-process interactively
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 14:24:59 +0300

> Cc: 56239 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Daniel Martín <mardani29 <at> yahoo.es>
> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 12:41:29 +0200
> 
> Michael Albinus <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > Unfortunately, it's not such simple. signal-process can also deliver a
> > signal to a process running on a remote host. The signal names on that
> > host might differ from the signal names on the local host, collected by
> > Fsignal_names.
> >
> > How do we want to handle this? I don't see a simple solution, because
> > the file name handler machinery is not in use here.
> 
> I think users will just have to use numbers in those cases (which is
> still possible).  I.e., the symbol names are a convenience where it
> works, but if not, then users can't use those.

I agree, but there's a larger problem here: signal numbers that
correspond to given names are also system-dependent.  That is, SIGINT
could be 2 on one system and 295 on another.  So if you type

  M-x signal-process RET INT RET

you could send to the process a signal number that will be interpreted
on the remote host as some completely different signal.

So I think we should at least document that symbolic names should be
used for remote processes only very carefully, if at all.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.