[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ZILE 2.3.10 (Autoconf 2.64 finds deadly DJGPP Bash bug)
From: |
Rugxulo |
Subject: |
Re: ZILE 2.3.10 (Autoconf 2.64 finds deadly DJGPP Bash bug) |
Date: |
Sat, 22 Aug 2009 14:44:07 -0500 |
Hi,
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 2:44 AM, Ralf Wildenhues<address@hidden> wrote:
>
> * Eric Blake wrote on Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 01:51:29AM CEST:
>> Or does it require a more complex function body, to show the difference
>> where the subshell avoids the crash? At any rate, we'll need to
>> characterize exactly what your shell's bug is.
>
> Yes. Rugxulo or Reuben, can you please post a link to the package
> that's failing? Thanks.
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/zile/zile-2.3.10.tar.gz
>>> However, the whole point of using 'return $ac_retval' without a subshell
>>> is to avoid forking, and catering to bash 2.04 brokenness (if it is indeed
>>> a bash bug fixed for 2.05a, as I suspect) is a step backwards.
>>
>>
>> You really think that this will slow everything down? Have you tested
>> it on your machine? (hint hint) :-)
>>
>> Yes I have tested it on cygwin, and yes it made a difference, which is why
>> we committed the patch in the first place. Seriously - the cost of a
>> subshell is VERY measurable, and doing anything to avoid a subshell will
>> have NOTICEABLE differences in the running time of a configure script.
Cygwin doesn't count as it's slow anyways, already emulating a lot of
stuff (e.g. fork) because Windows isn't POSIX friendly. Please
consider trying again on a real *nix (Linux, presumably), and tell me
if it takes more than a few secs extra, if even.
> We could use as_fn_set_status everywhere, and only define that to
> use a subshell if we detect 2.05a. That shouldn't penalize users of
> non-broken shells so much. (Of course, this is pretty vague given
> that we don't know what exactly the bug is.)
Both DJGPP ports of Bash 2.04 and 2.05b have this issue.
GNU bash, version 2.04.7(1)-release (i386-pc-msdosdjgpp)
GNU bash, version 2.05b.0(1)-release (i386-pc-msdosdjgpp)
Yes, it is vague, but I don't know what would be causing this either.
- Re: ZILE 2.3.10 (Autoconf 2.64 finds deadly DJGPP Bash bug), Rugxulo, 2009/08/20
- Re: ZILE 2.3.10 (Autoconf 2.64 finds deadly DJGPP Bash bug), Reuben Thomas, 2009/08/20
- Re: ZILE 2.3.10 (Autoconf 2.64 finds deadly DJGPP Bash bug), Reuben Thomas, 2009/08/23
- Re: ZILE 2.3.10 (Autoconf 2.64 finds deadly DJGPP Bash bug), Rugxulo, 2009/08/26
- Re: ZILE 2.3.10 (Autoconf 2.64 finds deadly DJGPP Bash bug), Paolo Bonzini, 2009/08/26
- Re: ZILE 2.3.10 (Autoconf 2.64 finds deadly DJGPP Bash bug), Rugxulo, 2009/08/26
- Re: ZILE 2.3.10 (Autoconf 2.64 finds deadly DJGPP Bash bug), Chet Ramey, 2009/08/28