Re: [PATCH] umount: always use umount2 syscall with specified flags

Some discussion on better encapsulations of the technique here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/174356/ways-to-assert-expressions-at-build-time-in-c Sam On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Xabier Oneca -- xOneca wrote: > Hello, > > Excuse my ignorance, but what does this

Re: ash: question about using test with '=' as $1

On 2015-10-04 13:49, Bastian Bittorf wrote: > while discussing a shellsheck issue[1], i stumpled > upon an interesting behaviour which is weird and > i cannot find it to be a problem when reading POSIX[2] > here, but all tested shells (ash,dash,bash) somehow > break at this: > > user@box:~ x='='

Re: ash: question about using test with '=' as $1

* Joshua Judson Rosen [05.10.2015 17:03]: > as an *operand*, because the binary operator "=" > is higher precedence than the unary operators. So, thanks for the good explanation. bye, bastian ___ busybox mailing list

Re: [PATCH] umount: always use umount2 syscall with specified flags

On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Xabier Oneca -- xOneca wrote: > Hello, > > Excuse my ignorance, but what does this typedef do? > > -- > { > typedef char bug[ > (OPT_FORCE != MNT_FORCE || OPT_LAZY != MNT_DETACH) ? -1 : 1 > ]; >