On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 3:45 PM Roberto A. Foglietta <[email protected]> wrote: > Il giorno mar 14 set 2021 alle ore 12:24 Denys Vlasenko > <[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 handler 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 > }
Why? > > > 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. The problem with this order is that dash people may disagree and refuse the change. If we already apply changes to bbox, what then? _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
