Re: [bug-gawk] BEGINFILE/ENDFILE bug?

[Andrew J. Schorr]

Hi Ed,

On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 08:15:46AM -0500, Ed Morton wrote:
> wrt the error messages below - is there a difference between
> "invalid" (as reported for ENDFILE) and "undefined" (as reported for
> END)? If not maybe you could just use one or the other terms for
> both?

In practice, there is a difference.  The "invalid" use of getline
inside BEGINFILE/ENDFILE causes the program to terminate with an
error.  But in an END rule, it merely triggers a warning message
if --lint is enabled.  This is how the patched version behaves:

bash-4.2$ ./gawk 'ENDFILE {getline; print}' /dev/null
gawk: cmd. line:1: error: non-redirected `getline' invalid inside `ENDFILE' rule
bash-4.2$ ./gawk 'END {getline; print}' /dev/null

bash-4.2$ ./gawk --lint 'END {getline; print}' /dev/null
gawk: cmd. line:1: warning: non-redirected `getline' undefined inside END action
gawk: cmd. line:1: warning: plain `print' in BEGIN or END rule should probably 
be `print ""'
gawk: cmd. line:1: warning: reference to uninitialized field `$0'

bash-4.2$ 

So I think the current messages match the current behavior.  I am not
sure why a non-redirected getline inside an END rule does not terminate
the program.  Perhaps that behavior is required by the POSIX standard.
But as long as the 2 cases behave differently, I think they should probably
have different messages.

Regards,
Andy