Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!unido!opal!net From: net@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de (Oliver Laumann) Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions Subject: Re: Answer on sockets; Question on screen under SunOS 4.[01] Message-ID: <2212@kraftbus.opal.cs.tu-berlin.de> Date: 15 Nov 90 14:07:32 GMT References: <7122:Nov1408:21:1690@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Reply-To: net@tubopal.UUCP (Oliver Laumann) Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany Lines: 27 In article <7122:Nov1408:21:1690@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: > In article primer@math.harvard.edu (Jeremy Primer) writes: > [ suspended process under screen 2.0 dies under SunOS 4.1 ] > > What has changed? > > I've upgraded pty to SunOS 4.1. Now if we could only convince Oliver to > support pty under screen along with (or in place of) his old pseudo-tty > allocation code, this wouldn't be a problem. Oh, well. Huh? What does the problem that was described in the original article have to do with the way pseudo-ttys are allocated in screen? Am I missing something? The problem with screen under SunOS 4.1 obviously is that a process running under control of screen is killed (i.e. receives a SIGKILL) when you type ^Z in the respective window. Since screen doesn't do this, it looks like the kernel kills the process. Instead of trying to convince me to change screen's pseudo-tty allocation code I would appreciate if someone could tell me under what conditions exactly the SunOS kernel kills a process, so that I can try to put a work-around into screen (unfortunately we don't have the SunOS sources, so I can't look that up myself). Thanks, -- Oliver Laumann net@TUB.BITNET net@tub.cs.tu-berlin.de net@tub.UUCP