[Geany-devel] Signal Handling
elextr at xxxxx
Sat Sep 22 03:21:30 UTC 2012
On 11 September 2012 11:47, Lex Trotman <elextr at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11 September 2012 03:15, Dimitar Zhekov <dimitar.zhekov at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 19:41:19 -0700
>> Matthew Brush <mbrush at codebrainz.ca> wrote:
>>> On 12-09-09 05:23 PM, Lex Trotman wrote:
>>> > [...]
>>> > So can anyone describe a useful use-case for catching SIGTERM and
>>> > potentially refusing to exit? And also for SIGINT.
>> From what I see, signal_cb (used currently for SIGTERM only) looks like
>> a naive attempt to replace the session management. That will never work,
>> of course - either the WM will send a SIGKILL quickly (in 1-2 seconds),
>> or the entire X will terminate, killing Geany.
> Thats my thoughts too, just wanting to see if anyone has any further info on it.
>> BTW, I'm happy to inform all Xfce users here that it's session
>> management was fixed and pushed to git, so we may expect it with the
>> next xfce-session versions. Using the "Action Buttons" plugin with
>> Shutdown or Restart will still not work, but that's a different bug. Or
>> maybe a feature, because the session settings specifically include the
>> text "... on logout".
> Sorry I've changed DEs again :)
>>> For SIGINT, if it's handled, it'll ask if you want to save unsaved
>>> documents before closing when Ctrl+C is used from the terminal. Not
>>> saying whether we should handle it or not, just that it's why my tests
>>> included it.
>> My whole X terminates if I run it from a virtual console and press
>> Ctrl+C, so why should Geany handle the signal? Is this a normal
>> practice for the GUI programs under X than I'm not aware of?
>> And of course, the portability of signal(2) is so bad that only SIG_DFL
>> and SIG_IGN can be trusted.
> Which is why it should only be "handled" via the mainloop, but as you
> say its very questionable if we want to do any handling of either of
> these signals anyway.
> Lets see if a reason emerges.
Since Dimitar and I are in agreement that the current code is *WRONG*
and dangerous I will commit an initial patch to comment out the
sigterm handling soon.
I see no reason to have this at all, but a corrected version of the
commented out code may be added later if needed.
>> E-gards: Jimmy
>> Geany-devel mailing list
>> Geany-devel at uvena.de
More information about the Devel