I have the following scripts:
$ cat nobug.sh
trap 'e=$?; [ $e -gt 0 ] echo OK || echo BAD; exit $e' 0
# syntax error here
true
$ cat bug.sh
set -e
trap 'e=$?; [ $e -gt 0 ] echo OK || echo BAD; exit $e' 0
# syntax error here
true
I thought that when bash detect a syntax errors in
I have the following scripts:
$ cat nobug.sh
trap 'e=$?; [ $e -gt 0 ] echo OK || echo BAD; exit $e' 0
# syntax error here
true
$ cat bug.sh
set -e
trap 'e=$?; [ $e -gt 0 ] echo OK || echo BAD; exit $e' 0
# syntax error here
true
I thought that when bash detect a syntax errors in a
Stefano Lattarini a écrit :
I thought that when bash detect a syntax errors in a script,
it would pass a $? != 0 to the code in the exit trap, regardless
of whether `set -e' is active or not.
[CUT]
I think this can be classified as a bug in bash (in some
situations, a very nasty
At Saturday 22 August 2009, Chet Ramey chet.ra...@case.edu wrote:
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
I have the following scripts:
[CUT]
I thought that when bash detect a syntax errors in the script,
it would pass a $? != 0 to the code in the exit trap, regardless
of whether `set -e' is active
Hi everybody.
I found the following bug while running some of my bash scripts on
GNU/Linux with stdout redirected to /dev/full, to see if write errors
where correctly detected and reported.
It turned out that, on write errors, the printf builtin correctly
returns a non-zero status (thus my
At Thursday 03 September 2009, Chet Ramey chet.ra...@case.edu wrote:
Thanks for the report. This will be fixed in the next version.
Good! And thanks to you for your quick answers and your useful
software.
Chet
Regards,
Stefano
At Tuesday 22 June 2010, Andres P wrote:
Bash 4.1 does not set the ERR trap:
$ env -i HOME=$HOME TERM=$TERM bash3 \!
set -o errexit
set -o errtrace
TRIGGERED_ERR() { return $?; }
trap 'TRIGGERED_ERR' ERR
set -o xtrace
var=$(false) || true
Here, the subshell has
At Tuesday 22 June 2010, Andres P wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 4:45 AM, Stefano Lattarini
stefano.lattar...@gmail.com wrote:
++ false # Subshell false
+++ TRIGGERED_ERR # Ignores outer || true
No, it doesen't even see it; the script seen by the subshell
consists just
At Thursday 29 July 2010, Andrew Benton wrote:
andy:~$ count=0
andy:~$ ((count++))
andy:~$ echo $?
1
andy:~$ ((count++))
andy:~$ echo $?
0
I don't think it's a bug, it's just an effect of:
1. `((EXPR))' returning a non-zero exit status iff EXPR evaluates
to zero, and
2. `var++'
At Friday 30 July 2010, Andrew Benton wrote:
On 30/07/10 19:55, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
At Thursday 29 July 2010, Andrew Benton wrote:
andy:~$ count=0
andy:~$ ((count++))
andy:~$ echo $?
1
andy:~$ ((count++))
andy:~$ echo $?
0
I don't think it's a bug, it's just an effect
At Friday 30 July 2010, Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 09:49:22PM +0200, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
But then, maybe an exit status of `2' instead of `1' in case of
errors in ((...)) would be helpful -- currently the exit status
is still `1'
also if a real error is present
Hi Eric.
On Thursday 18 August 2011, Eric Blake wrote:
On 08/18/2011 08:44 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
how do I write a function that would print the same as
$ \ls | cat
Useless use of cat. This can be done with \ls -1.
f(){ for a in $@; do echo $a; done; }
Or skip the loop altogether:
On Thursday 18 August 2011, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Hi Eric.
On Thursday 18 August 2011, Eric Blake wrote:
On 08/18/2011 08:44 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
how do I write a function that would print the same as
$ \ls | cat
Useless use of cat. This can be done with \ls -1.
f
On Wednesday 23 November 2011, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Steven W. Orr ste...@syslang.net writes:
I think we're beating this one to death, but I have point out that
telling perl to run a print command whose output is redirected by bash
is not the same as telling bash to run a builtin echo
Hello everybody. Just my 2 cents about this ...
On Monday 28 November 2011, Chet Ramey wrote:
On 11/28/11 4:48 AM, Roman Rakus wrote:
On 11/28/2011 06:28 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
I don't think I'll push every change to git as soon as it happens, but
I'm thinking about fairly frequent
On 03/02/2012 02:50 AM, Chet Ramey wrote:
On 2/29/12 2:42 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
In the middle of the histrionics and gibberish, we have the nugget of an
actual proposal (thanks, Eric):
[to allow `.' to look anchored relative pathnames up in $PATH]
About the best we can do is
On 03/03/2012 08:28 AM, Pierre Gaston wrote:
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Or here is a what it sounds as a marginally better idea to me: Bash could
start supporting a new environment variable like BASHLIB (a' la'
PERL5LIB)
or BASHPATH (a' la' PYTHONPATH) holding
On 03/19/2012 08:54 PM, Lane Schwartz wrote:
Hi,
If I have a file that contains a bash script, is there any
straightforward way of determining whether that script can be parsed
successfully as a Bash script, without actually running the file?
Yes: the -n option. Simple examples:
$ echo
On 06/22/2012 09:47 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
By accident I keyed in :
cd //
and noticed that my prompt included both slashes.
Posix says shells have to leave two leading slashes in a pathname alone.
Three or more can be collapsed to one, but two have to stay unchanged.
This has come up
/archive/html/automake-patches/2012-06/msg4.html
Copyright-paperwork-exempt: yes
Signed-off-by: Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com
---
INSTALL | 4 ++--
MANIFEST | 2 +-
Makefile.in | 4 ++--
configure.in = configure.ac | 0
doc
Signed-off-by: Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com
---
doc/bash.html| 54 ++---
doc/bashref.html | 28 +++--
doc/bashref.info | 329 ---
3 files changed, 227 insertions(+), 184 deletions(-)
diff --git a/doc/bash.html b/doc
From experimenting, I've found out that bash (4.2.20), when invoked
as sh, doesn't reset the effective user id to the real user id,
even if called *without* the '-p' option.
This behaviour seems consistent with that of other POSIX shells like
dash (0.5.7) and ksh (JM 93u+ 2012-02-29), so I
On 10/30/2012 06:28 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
$ ./system-suid
[8204] ruid = 1000, euid = 0, suid = 0
Looks like your /bin/sh is broken.
How broken exactly? Honest question.
Anyway, my /bin/sh is bash ...
$ ls -l /bin/sh
Hi Bob, thanks for the tips. However ...
On 10/30/2012 07:37 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Anyway, my /bin/sh is bash ...
$ ls -l /bin/sh
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Jul 8 2010 /bin/sh - bash
I'm on Debian Unstable BTW (sorry for not specifying that earlier).
Let me
On 12/14/2012 06:07 PM, Bill Gradwohl wrote:
I'm not trying to start a war, but ...
Has anyone entertained the idea of getting rid of the man pages and the
info system? Those are relics of the tty era.
Don't make the error of confusing the texinfo system with just the
info format. I, for
On 12/14/2012 06:58 PM, Bill Gradwohl wrote:
My point was to DESIGN for html and the rich environment it offers, not to
try to convert a Model T into a Mercedes.
I'm not wild about a wiki either, if its a free for all. If on the other
hand, it is a submission platform that gets reviewed and
On 03/29/2013 12:57 PM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:41:46AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
include was designed to search the path for functions that
are relative paths. While the normal sourcepath allows searching for
filenames on the search path, I don't believe (please
[+cc bug-gnulib, see below for a reason]
Minimal reproducer of the regression:
$ cat foo.bash
echo $BASH_VERSION
declare -A hash
echo ${hash[a/b]}
echo $?
$ /bin/bash foo.bash
4.2.45(1)-release
0
$ ~/bleeding/bin/bash foo.bash
4.3.0(1)-alpha
foo.bash: line 3: a/b:
Compared with Bash 4.2, the development version of bash is very slow
in running autoconf-generated configure scripts (or, to be more
precise, that's where I noticed the slowness; it might very well be
more generalized, but I haven't checked for that).
Some numbers:
$ /bin/bash -c 'echo
On 05/06/2013 12:33 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com writes:
Four times slower, yikes. Any idea where these numbers might be coming
from?
Try building without debugging options (make DEUBG= MALLOC_DEBUG=)
Thanks! This solved the issue (after s
On 05/06/2013 10:00 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
On 5/3/13 5:48 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
[+cc bug-gnulib, see below for a reason]
Minimal reproducer of the regression:
$ cat foo.bash
echo $BASH_VERSION
declare -A hash
echo ${hash[a/b]}
echo $?
$ /bin/bash foo.bash
4.2.45(1
31 matches
Mail list logo
