On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 10:35:18PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Herbert Xu wrote:
> 
> > Actually the bug is elsewhere.
> 
> It does bisect to there. :)  But you're right, it would have been
> simpler to send one patch.
> 
> > --- a/src/eval.c
> > +++ b/src/eval.c
> > @@ -854,7 +854,7 @@ bail:
> >                     int i;
> >  
> >                     i = exception;
> > -                   if (i == EXEXIT)
> > +                   if (i == EXEXIT || i == EXEXEC)
> >                             goto raise;
> 
> Good call.  This is better than my patch because it exits like it
> ought to for
> 
>       command exec nonexistent
> 
> (as POSIX says:
> 
>       If command is specified, exec shall not return to the shell
> 
> ).
> 
> Maybe the following would make sense on top?

Nice! I like where you are going with this :)

Let me run it through the tests and apply it.

Thanks,
-- 
Email: Herbert Xu <herb...@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dash" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to