What does the `-f' option do for `wait' versus the default behaviour?
Bash 5.0 includes a new -f option for wait:[1]
j. The `wait' builtin now has a `-f' option, which signfies to wait until the
specified job or process terminates, instead of waiting until it changes
state.
What does wait -f $pid do as opposed to the default wait $pid? Under what conditions is the -f option needed?
bash wait
asked Jan 8 at 15:42
WhymarrhWhymarrh
126129
add a comment |
Bash 5.0 includes a new -f option for wait:[1]
j. The `wait' builtin now has a `-f' option, which signfies to wait until the
specified job or process terminates, instead of waiting until it changes
state.
What does wait -f $pid do as opposed to the default wait $pid? Under what conditions is the -f option needed?
bash wait
asked Jan 8 at 15:42
WhymarrhWhymarrh
126129
add a comment |
Bash 5.0 includes a new -f option for wait:[1]
j. The `wait' builtin now has a `-f' option, which signfies to wait until the
specified job or process terminates, instead of waiting until it changes
state.
What does wait -f $pid do as opposed to the default wait $pid? Under what conditions is the -f option needed?
bash wait
asked Jan 8 at 15:42
WhymarrhWhymarrh
126129
Bash 5.0 includes a new -f option for wait:[1]
j. The `wait' builtin now has a `-f' option, which signfies to wait until the
specified job or process terminates, instead of waiting until it changes
state.
What does wait -f $pid do as opposed to the default wait $pid? Under what conditions is the -f option needed?
bash wait
bash wait
asked Jan 8 at 15:42
WhymarrhWhymarrh
126129
asked Jan 8 at 15:42
WhymarrhWhymarrh
126129
asked Jan 8 at 15:42
WhymarrhWhymarrh
126129
asked Jan 8 at 15:42
WhymarrhWhymarrh
126129
asked Jan 8 at 15:42
WhymarrhWhymarrh
126129
126129
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The change description is accurate, but somewhat obscure since wait is generally thought of as waiting for a process to finish.
Try this:
sleep 60&
wait %1
then in another terminal,
kill -STOP ${pid}
replacing ${pid} with sleep’s pid (as output when it was put in the background). wait will exit, because the job’s state changed.
With -f, wait will wait for the job or process to really terminate; used above, it wouldn’t exit with kill -STOP, and would wait for the process to be resumed (kill -CONT) and finish running.
answered Jan 8 at 16:07
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
166k24367447
1
At least with bash 4.3, this wait-for-any-state-change behavior happens only if the shell is interactive. In a script, fortunately, bash behaves as other shells: wait for the process to terminate.
– Gilles
Jan 8 at 16:36
@Gilles is the behaviour in an interactive shell vs. a non-interactive one documented anywhere?help waitdoesn't mention that difference.
– Whymarrh
Jan 8 at 17:22
@Whymarrh Not in the documentation of 4.3. I haven't checked if it's been fixed in 5.0.
– Gilles
Jan 8 at 17:56
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f493259%2fwhat-does-the-f-option-do-for-wait-versus-the-default-behaviour%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The change description is accurate, but somewhat obscure since wait is generally thought of as waiting for a process to finish.
Try this:
sleep 60&
wait %1
then in another terminal,
kill -STOP ${pid}
replacing ${pid} with sleep’s pid (as output when it was put in the background). wait will exit, because the job’s state changed.
With -f, wait will wait for the job or process to really terminate; used above, it wouldn’t exit with kill -STOP, and would wait for the process to be resumed (kill -CONT) and finish running.
answered Jan 8 at 16:07
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
166k24367447
1
At least with bash 4.3, this wait-for-any-state-change behavior happens only if the shell is interactive. In a script, fortunately, bash behaves as other shells: wait for the process to terminate.
– Gilles
Jan 8 at 16:36
@Gilles is the behaviour in an interactive shell vs. a non-interactive one documented anywhere?help waitdoesn't mention that difference.
– Whymarrh
Jan 8 at 17:22
@Whymarrh Not in the documentation of 4.3. I haven't checked if it's been fixed in 5.0.
– Gilles
Jan 8 at 17:56
add a comment |
The change description is accurate, but somewhat obscure since wait is generally thought of as waiting for a process to finish.
Try this:
sleep 60&
wait %1
then in another terminal,
kill -STOP ${pid}
replacing ${pid} with sleep’s pid (as output when it was put in the background). wait will exit, because the job’s state changed.
With -f, wait will wait for the job or process to really terminate; used above, it wouldn’t exit with kill -STOP, and would wait for the process to be resumed (kill -CONT) and finish running.
answered Jan 8 at 16:07
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
166k24367447
1
At least with bash 4.3, this wait-for-any-state-change behavior happens only if the shell is interactive. In a script, fortunately, bash behaves as other shells: wait for the process to terminate.
– Gilles
Jan 8 at 16:36
@Gilles is the behaviour in an interactive shell vs. a non-interactive one documented anywhere?help waitdoesn't mention that difference.
– Whymarrh
Jan 8 at 17:22
@Whymarrh Not in the documentation of 4.3. I haven't checked if it's been fixed in 5.0.
– Gilles
Jan 8 at 17:56
add a comment |
The change description is accurate, but somewhat obscure since wait is generally thought of as waiting for a process to finish.
Try this:
sleep 60&
wait %1
then in another terminal,
kill -STOP ${pid}
replacing ${pid} with sleep’s pid (as output when it was put in the background). wait will exit, because the job’s state changed.
With -f, wait will wait for the job or process to really terminate; used above, it wouldn’t exit with kill -STOP, and would wait for the process to be resumed (kill -CONT) and finish running.
answered Jan 8 at 16:07
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
166k24367447
The change description is accurate, but somewhat obscure since wait is generally thought of as waiting for a process to finish.
Try this:
sleep 60&
wait %1
then in another terminal,
kill -STOP ${pid}
replacing ${pid} with sleep’s pid (as output when it was put in the background). wait will exit, because the job’s state changed.
With -f, wait will wait for the job or process to really terminate; used above, it wouldn’t exit with kill -STOP, and would wait for the process to be resumed (kill -CONT) and finish running.
answered Jan 8 at 16:07
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
166k24367447
edited Jan 8 at 16:51
answered Jan 8 at 16:07
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
166k24367447
answered Jan 8 at 16:07
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
166k24367447
answered Jan 8 at 16:07
Stephen KittStephen Kitt
166k24367447
166k24367447
1
At least with bash 4.3, this wait-for-any-state-change behavior happens only if the shell is interactive. In a script, fortunately, bash behaves as other shells: wait for the process to terminate.
– Gilles
Jan 8 at 16:36
@Gilles is the behaviour in an interactive shell vs. a non-interactive one documented anywhere?help waitdoesn't mention that difference.
– Whymarrh
Jan 8 at 17:22
@Whymarrh Not in the documentation of 4.3. I haven't checked if it's been fixed in 5.0.
– Gilles
Jan 8 at 17:56
add a comment |
1
At least with bash 4.3, this wait-for-any-state-change behavior happens only if the shell is interactive. In a script, fortunately, bash behaves as other shells: wait for the process to terminate.
– Gilles
Jan 8 at 16:36
@Gilles is the behaviour in an interactive shell vs. a non-interactive one documented anywhere?help waitdoesn't mention that difference.
– Whymarrh
Jan 8 at 17:22
@Whymarrh Not in the documentation of 4.3. I haven't checked if it's been fixed in 5.0.
– Gilles
Jan 8 at 17:56
1
1
At least with bash 4.3, this wait-for-any-state-change behavior happens only if the shell is interactive. In a script, fortunately, bash behaves as other shells: wait for the process to terminate.
– Gilles
Jan 8 at 16:36
At least with bash 4.3, this wait-for-any-state-change behavior happens only if the shell is interactive. In a script, fortunately, bash behaves as other shells: wait for the process to terminate.
– Gilles
Jan 8 at 16:36
@Gilles is the behaviour in an interactive shell vs. a non-interactive one documented anywhere?
help wait doesn't mention that difference.– Whymarrh
Jan 8 at 17:22
@Gilles is the behaviour in an interactive shell vs. a non-interactive one documented anywhere?
help wait doesn't mention that difference.– Whymarrh
Jan 8 at 17:22
@Whymarrh Not in the documentation of 4.3. I haven't checked if it's been fixed in 5.0.
– Gilles
Jan 8 at 17:56
@Whymarrh Not in the documentation of 4.3. I haven't checked if it's been fixed in 5.0.
– Gilles
Jan 8 at 17:56
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f493259%2fwhat-does-the-f-option-do-for-wait-versus-the-default-behaviour%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
