Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.
Bug 83417 - emacs reports incorrect process exit status
Summary: emacs reports incorrect process exit status
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Raw Hide
Classification: Retired
Component: kernel
Version: 1.0
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Arjan van de Ven
QA Contact: Brian Brock
Depends On:
Blocks: 79578
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2003-02-04 03:10 UTC by Jonathan Kamens
Modified: 2007-04-18 16:50 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2003-02-20 03:45:27 UTC

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jonathan Kamens 2003-02-04 03:10:20 UTC
I updated to the current Raw Hide earlier today.  That means glibc-2.3.1-40 and
emacs-21.2-30, among other things.

Emacs is now claiming that a process exited with status 1 when in fact it exited
with status 5.  Try this....

1) Create a file "/tmp/" with these contents:

  sleep 5
  exit 5

2) Make it executable.

3) Define and run this function:

  (defun test-exit-status ()
    (let (process)
      (make-comint "foo" "/tmp/")
      (setq process (get-buffer-process (get-buffer "*foo*")))
      (sleep-for 6)
      (message (format "Exit status is %d" (process-exit-status process)))))

It will display the message "Exit status is 1", when it should display "Exit
status is 5".  This is a pretty serious change in functionality, and it breaks
stuff that I do in Emacs every single day.

Comment 1 Jens Petersen 2003-02-05 05:42:32 UTC
Reproduced with kernel-2.4.20-2.33.  I heard that this is known
current kernel bug that "makes many things wrongly show death by SIGHUP
when they exit".  [Doesn't happen with 2.4.20-2.21 for sure, nor -2.27 iirc.]

Comment 2 Bill Nottingham 2003-02-18 01:01:15 UTC
Does this still happen with 2.49?

Comment 3 Jonathan Kamens 2003-02-20 03:45:27 UTC
It seems OK in 2.49.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.