[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: 2.49e problems with gcc
From: |
Tim Van Holder |
Subject: |
RE: 2.49e problems with gcc |
Date: |
Thu, 10 May 2001 20:20:06 +0200 |
> > Tim> And as for the autoheader problem: is it supposed to fail
> > Tim> silently (as it does for me),
> >
> > No, it should not.
> OK - I'll look into possible problems (I expect there'll be some issue
> with FDs/redirection again). For further evidence, is autoheader
> supposed to clean up after itself if traces.sh fails (for me, traces.sh
> gets left behind).
It seems that the DJGPP port of bash hash a bug in its 'set -e';
autoheader uses
if (set -e && . traces.sh) >/dev/null 2>&1; then
. traces.sh
else
echo failed
fi
But on the DJGPP port, bash exits completely due to the set -e (instead
of just the subshell exiting).
I've reported this to the DJGPP maintainer of bash.
Note that I think you shouldn't redirect the first run; this masks any
useful error messages sourcing traces.sh might produce.
- 2.49e problems with gcc, Matthew Schalit, 2001/05/09
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Thomas E. Dickey, 2001/05/09
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Matthew Schalit, 2001/05/09
- RE: 2.49e problems with gcc, Tim Van Holder, 2001/05/09
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Thomas Dickey, 2001/05/09
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Tim Van Holder, 2001/05/10
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Akim Demaille, 2001/05/10
- RE: 2.49e problems with gcc, Tim Van Holder, 2001/05/10
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Tim Van Holder, 2001/05/10
- RE: 2.49e problems with gcc,
Tim Van Holder <=
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Akim Demaille, 2001/05/11
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Akim Demaille, 2001/05/11
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Tim Van Holder, 2001/05/11
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Akim Demaille, 2001/05/12
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Akim Demaille, 2001/05/12
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Tim Van Holder, 2001/05/16
- RE: 2.49e problems with gcc, Tim Van Holder, 2001/05/17
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Akim Demaille, 2001/05/19
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Thomas Dickey, 2001/05/19
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Tim Van Holder, 2001/05/16