Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!decwrl!pyramid!prls!philabs!ttidca!mb From: mb@ttidca.TTI.COM (Michael Bloom) Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm Subject: Re: Ignoring Hangups Message-ID: <2636@ttidca.TTI.COM> Date: 5 Jun 88 17:54:01 GMT References: <5615@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> Reply-To: mb@ttidca.tti.com (The Mb of all Evil) Organization: Citicorp/TTI, Santa Monica Lines: 14 In article <5615@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> xev@hstbme.mit.edu (Xev Gittler) writes: > ... Could someone tell me the reason that elm ignores HUP's at some >points, and mre importantly, is it bad to change it not to ignore >them? I think it may be "bad" NOT to change it, considering that on many systems terminal opens can be invalidated (after which programs that do ignore HUPS may subsequently loop on apparent EOF's). While there may be critical sections to protect, it would be better to hold the HUP rather than to ignore it. You can do this for systems without sighold or sigblock by using a dummy handler that just notes that the HUP occurred and deal with it later.