Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>> * Paolo Bonzini wrote on Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 07:34:44PM CET:
>>>>> -[{ ($2) >&AS_MESSAGE_LOG_FD
>>>>> +[{ { $2; } >&AS_MESSAGE_LOG_FD
>>>> This breaks Ultrix compatibility (when used as part of AC_TRY_EVAL), no?
>>> Ultrix had shell functions?
>> Yes, according to
>> <http://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/various/shells/#ultrix11>Right, sh does not have them but sh5 has them >>> Anyway I agree that this change should have >>> been made separately (if at all). >> And likely this issue is so moot because none of us knows anyone who has >> an Ultrix system any more. Right? > > That's true, but it could break an AC_TRY_EVAL of something set to exit > 1 (instead of false)... Oops, sorry, that's $2, not $1... I guess that's moot then (what Ultrix issue is that, BTW? I don't see it in http://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/various/shells/#svr2 which is the paragraph for Ultrix sh5). Paolo
