Re: [PATCH] A terminating signal has to complete a bash process

[Chet Ramey]

On 5/1/18 7:55 PM, Andrei Vagin wrote:

>> If it's not obvious, I'm trying to determine whether making this change
>> will add any more value than simply exiting (perhaps with a particular
>> exit status).
> 
> It will add more value. Without this changes, we will not know whether a
> bach process crashed or exited. If it will not generate a core dump after
> a crash, the tools like abrtd, coredumpd, etc will not detect this crash
> and will not report about this abnormal behaviour.

OK, we'll try it. I'll be interested to see if any core dumps created by
causing a SIGSEGV will overwrite any stack information from the `real'
fatal signal.

Thanks for the patch.

-- 
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
                 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/