On 14/09/2021 17:06, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
Il giorno mar 14 set 2021 alle ore 18:01 Harald van Dijk
<[email protected]> ha scritto:
On 14/09/2021 11:24, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
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.
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.
If you change exitcmd() to no longer unwind before calling an EXIT
handler, this will change the behaviour of EXIT handlers in that they
will run in a different environment than before the change. Whether that
is good or bad is arguable and something I do not want to get into, but
it should be clear that this is not some NFC code cleanup, this will
have an impact on how the shell behaves.
Sorry Harald, I did not got this. There is "nothing" after EXIT: exit
terminates the shell execution. So, what kind of environment will be
changed between the two ways?
When I wrote "EXIT handlers ... will run in a different environment", I
meant that EXIT handlers will run in a different environment. That is
something that happens during exitshell(), before the shell exits. There
is nothing in there about any "after EXIT", I'm not sure where that came
from and sure, that wouldn't make any sense. Since I do not see where
this misunderstanding came from I am not sure how to clear it up.
Cheers,
Harald van Dijk
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
