>>> It seems that make coccicheck interprets anything being written on
>>> standard error as a fatal error.
>>
>> How do you come to this conclusion?
>
> Because the message in question used to be sent to standard output,
> for many years, and no one was complaining.
Is it interesting to look on circumstances and why it was tolerated?
Did the expectations evolve a bit more for this software in the meantime?
> I don't see why printing a warning message to stderr would change the
> return code only in the parallel case.
I would also wonder about such a side effect.
Can a failed call of a function like "printf" in the OCaml source code
result in a questionable return value which will become the discussed
program exit status?
By the way:
This observation depends on the result from the following statements.
…
SPATCH="`which ${SPATCH:=spatch}`"
…
$SPATCH --help | grep "\-\-jobs" > /dev/null && USE_JOBS="yes"
…
Would an approach like the following help here?
Update candidate "scripts/coccicheck":
…
run_cmd_parmap() {
…
$@ 2>$DEBUG_FILE
if [[ $? -ne 0 ]]; then
COMMAND_RESULT=$?
echo "coccicheck failed"
exit $COMMAND_RESULT
fi
}
…
Regards,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Cocci mailing list
[email protected]
https://systeme.lip6.fr/mailman/listinfo/cocci
