From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Funny: git -p submodule summary Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 06:21:09 -0500 Message-ID: <20090112112109.GA3825@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20090109083836.GB21389@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20090109092250.GA1809@coredump.intra.peff.net> <49672244.80200@viscovery.net> <20090109101335.GA4346@coredump.intra.peff.net> <496728B9.7090200@viscovery.net> <20090111112222.GA29656@coredump.intra.peff.net> <496B2278.9050905@viscovery.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , Johannes Schindelin , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Sixt X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jan 12 12:23:23 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LMKsN-0005lU-Px for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 12:22:36 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752327AbZALLVM (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2009 06:21:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751679AbZALLVM (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2009 06:21:12 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:39757 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751572AbZALLVL (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2009 06:21:11 -0500 Received: (qmail 30777 invoked by uid 107); 12 Jan 2009 11:21:11 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Mon, 12 Jan 2009 06:21:11 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 12 Jan 2009 06:21:09 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <496B2278.9050905@viscovery.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:59:04AM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote: > But we need to insert the patch below *before* 2/4. The test case needs a > change, too,(exit code on Windows is 3, not 130) but I'll keep that in my > repository, like with all other Windows related test suite changes. Hrm. How do you properly detect "killed by SIGINT" on Windows? That is the intent of that test. > -#define SIGKILL 0 > -#define SIGCHLD 0 > -#define SIGPIPE 0 > -#define SIGHUP 0 > -#define SIGQUIT 0 > -#define SIGALRM 100 > +#define SIGHUP 1 > +#define SIGQUIT 3 > +#define SIGKILL 9 > +#define SIGPIPE 13 > +#define SIGALRM 14 > +#define SIGCHLD 17 Don't these get fed to signal()? Does Windows really not care about getting bogus numbers versus 0 (which is, admittedly, bogus itself)? Or are we just ignoring the return code everywhere? -Peff