Hello, * Eric Blake wrote on Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 01:51:29AM CEST: > Or does it require a more complex function body, to show the difference > where the subshell avoids the crash? At any rate, we'll need to > characterize exactly what your shell's bug is.
Yes. Rugxulo or Reuben, can you please post a link to the package that's failing? Thanks. > However, the whole point of using 'return $ac_retval' without a subshell > is to avoid forking, and catering to bash 2.04 brokenness (if it is indeed > a bash bug fixed for 2.05a, as I suspect) is a step backwards. We could use as_fn_set_status everywhere, and only define that to use a subshell if we detect 2.05a. That shouldn't penalize users of non-broken shells so much. (Of course, this is pretty vague given that we don't know what exactly the bug is.) Cheers, Ralf
