Sigint and whatnot revert

[ZhilkinSerg]

Summary

None

Purpose of change

Resolve issues described in #77636 (comment)

Describe the solution

Revert #67893
Revert #68071
Revert #75999
Revert #77457
Revert #77651
Revert #78379

Testing

Make sure Alt+F4 works as before cdda-experimental-2024-10-21-1656 - i.e., Alt+F4 quits immediately and not after ui is changed.

Additional context

This would probably again bring up some bugs (previously resolved by reverted PRs), so we might still want to resolve them with a different approach (and/or more carefully testing that Alt+F4 still properly works).

[ZhilkinSerg]

Revert diffs (for git apply -R /c/Projects/Cataclysm-DDA-patches/revert/67893.diff command):

revert_diffs.zip

[RenechCDDA]

Would re-open #8417 at the very least.

Assuming this is the approach we're going with, do we really need to revert #67893 and #68071?

We're going to want to resolve the signal handler issues regardless(I think??), so I would think we at least want to keep those two?

Basically, I'm not sold on the purpose of this change. This is just trading a different kind of broken IMO

[harakka]

Assuming this is the approach we're going with, do we really need to revert #67893 and #68071?

#68071 can be ignored from this discussion, object creator is basically dead code that is kept in repo as courtesy.

[ZhilkinSerg]

Assuming this is the approach we're going with, do we really need to revert #67893 and #68071?

We are just returning back to status quo before all the issues appeared. I am not against applying these patches again - just with proper testing they don't break anything again (I just can't test them myself right now as these are non-Windows changes and I don't have Linux VM at the moment).

[andrei8l]

Would re-open #8417 at the very least.

I don't think so. That issue was pointless pedantry. If you're SIGINT'ing, 99% of the time it's because you really do want to quit and we were cleaning up the UI state to some degree in any case.

Assuming this is the approach we're going with, do we really need to revert #67893 and #68071?

Yes! They introduced a lot of other issues that my PRs tried to solve.