X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 763203858C5F DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com; s=default; t=1710737963; bh=yll+jAult85bQ+/GBuepaHwKawwLXI30AL37E/UROMw=; h=Date:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To: From; b=KYElznE2IDGCdQqGMDvo4lOrL/63m5X2s2bj5685LB0FgptrQld5qgEVK6d+wtgUy N27KD/YwujZq7RQnStAei227E8kr7T/ORu1l3uxHRQzCTt0AoBjHHtouKDR56klfzK tSwg3cNTmmlt+FdX1fixlu1TMmFbguFhmxVT8EAY= X-Original-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org AA2223858D37 ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org AA2223858D37 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1710737914; cv=none; b=ZvN3BgQPvAjhiSO++YPc+obT/6+d0fSyx+cktIblXkdqnevJfViIcVDHiqcxUsw29wyc3MGhuOWbDEPX089d9phOINSdmkFaEFiFS0b4ytmI9HRVOnHEZTLPAq0wDphrSkQ3iusMTTsre/gqvEW6rrS2/Ux0AsgCvYdaqaQs7xs= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1710737914; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Ged9r9DizXbPtLqh6xNwbFfVOgCs1u96J6QdEJFGqvw=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Mime-Version; b=sERSuWi43FOqnJlW1EMFdbEaQchWB0MzwPAThbl1OsdNA7BMUXO46F233xqIFXPrA8jSsIH6n/k0fSUNs08D1xvNKC6FZBBnKQo5ZCHCJW4ZqIJBcP3ZW3R2KroyzQ7PNJ5nBlG9LB7WQNvSCDodzTfQ99oADu/spInSIVt+qrQ= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:58:26 +0900 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Bogus exit code 127 from a child process Message-Id: <20240318135826.e4176868074e074eb3138cb5@nifty.ne.jp> In-Reply-To: <20240318120906.ccac3ad237a8f6c4c1b94c71@nifty.ne.jp> References: <20240317174402 DOT 4a3e73a7fca2f5978ac93913 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp> <61d4fca73047915567fc9b4aac2860a3 AT ispras DOT ru> <20240317182757 DOT 84b41a596c344f395c1d8f9a AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp> <20240317192116 DOT b00f24c9ee065f16d6ac6673 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp> <20240317210358 DOT ad701873dc5cfc9a3026dc0c AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp> <20240317211517 DOT 40cfbe0a664f7c7fe3d6e73d AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp> <20240317213548 DOT 652be777a51f00108414d9bf AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp> <8F45EC6F-A035-449B-89D0-065FAE3FC157 AT unified-streaming DOT com> <259F0ECF-9AE8-42E7-A746-8227F8B7870C AT unified-streaming DOT com> <20240318120906 DOT ccac3ad237a8f6c4c1b94c71 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.30; i686-pc-mingw32) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: General Cygwin discussions and problem reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Takashi Yano via Cygwin Reply-To: Takashi Yano Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com Sender: "Cygwin" On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 12:09:06 +0900 Takashi Yano wrote: > On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:10:55 +0100 > Dimitry Andric wrote: > > On 17 Mar 2024, at 13:50, Dimitry Andric wrote: > > > > > > On 17 Mar 2024, at 13:35, Takashi Yano via Cygwin wrote: > > > ... > > >> > > >> I also test your test case: > > >> while bash -c 'true & true & wait -n || { echo 1: $?; exit 1; } && wait -n || { echo 2: $?; exit 1; }'; do echo $((i++)); done > > >> in Linux (Debian 12.5), and the issue reproduced! > > > > > > Yeah, same here with bash 5.1.16(1)-release on Ubuntu 22.04. It errors out with 127 after ~50-200 loops. > > > > Having built bash master (bash-5.2-27-gf3b6bd19) here, it consistently gives 127 in this area: > > > > https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/bash.git/tree/builtins/wait.def#n227 > > > > 211 #if defined (JOB_CONTROL) > > 212 if (nflag) > > 213 { > > 214 if (list) > > 215 { > > 216 opt = set_waitlist (list); > > 217 if (opt == 0) > > 218 WAIT_RETURN (127); > > 219 wflags |= JWAIT_WAITING; > > 220 } > > 221 > > 222 status = wait_for_any_job (wflags, &pstat); > > 223 if (vname && status >= 0) > > 224 builtin_bind_var_to_int (vname, pstat.pid, bindflags); > > 225 > > 226 if (status < 0) > > => 227 status = 127; > > 228 if (list) > > 229 unset_waitlist (); > > 230 WAIT_RETURN (status); > > 231 } > > 232 #endif > > > > So for some reason, wait_for_any_job() returns a negative value in this particular situation. > > Line 218 looks also suspicious. Probably, this is not a bug. man bash says: If the -n option is supplied, wait waits for a single job from the list of ids or, if no ids are supplied, any job, to complete and returns its exit status. If none of the supplied arguments is a child of the shell, or if no arguments are supplied and the shell has no unwaited‐for children, the exit status is 127. If the background process exited before calling 'wait -n', it returns 127. This is very different from wait() system call, which is necessary for any background joubs, otherwise zombie remains. In the shell, it is not necessary to call wait command for background jobs, therefore exit status of the background job which already exited is not held anymore. So, actual bug is in the test case. -- Takashi Yano -- Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: https://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: https://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple