Sujet : Re: When/why does the shell (bash) (sometimes) not re-cycle job IDs?
De : janis_papanagnou+ng (at) *nospam* hotmail.com (Janis Papanagnou)
Groupes : comp.unix.shellDate : 12. May 2024, 17:36:36
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <v1qr6l$2qsv6$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
On 12.05.2024 04:30, Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article <v1p6hr$2btq7$1@dont-email.me>,
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 12.05.2024 02:14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2024 22:44:03 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>
If no job is running, a new job gets 1, otherwise new jobs are numbered
consecutively.
>
Job numbers are reused after it has notified you of termination of the
previous job. At least in Bash.
>
Also the same behavior in Ksh, ever since I can remember; lowest job
number "available" gets re-used first. (Where "available" means that
its finishing status has been reported and not that the job finished.)
Nope. Sorry.
I read that as "in Bash it's not the case". - Can't tell; I can just
say that what LDO was claiming for Bash at least is the behavior for
Ksh. (You are not arguing that Ksh would behave differently, do you?)
Janis
When/why does the shell (bash) (sometimes) not re-cycle job IDs?
Re: When/why does the shell (bash) (sometimes) not re-cycle job IDs?