Il giorno mar 14 set 2021 alle ore 12:24 Denys Vlasenko
<[email protected]> ha scritto:
>
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 10:04 AM Roberto A. Foglietta
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Il giorno dom 12 set 2021 alle ore 18:55 Roberto A. Foglietta
> > <[email protected]> ha scritto:
> >
> > > I am going to replace every raise_exception(EXEXIT) with exitshell()
> > > and to remove the EXEXIT altogether.
>
> There is only one: in exitcmd(), the nadler of "exit" builtin.
I think that also here raise_exception(EXEND); should need to be
replaced with exitshell() when FUNCNAME patch will be added
if (eflag)
goto exexit;
}
if (flags & EV_EXIT) {
exexit:
raise_exception(EXEND); //<--- exitshell() when FUNCNAME
}
>
> > It seems to me that EXEXIT does
> > > not add any value but complicates things. What's your opinion on that?
> > > Do you see any possible regression?
>
> Could work. Can you make this change through dash?
> I do not want to diverge here.
I can give you the patch for the busybox and then when you apply it
you (or me, but better you) can initiate a synchronisation with dash
under multiple issues.
Am I wrong if I imagine that there are many points in which dash and
busybox ash diverged?
--
Roberto A. Foglietta
+39.349.33.30.697
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
