[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ld-output-def
From: |
Simon Josefsson |
Subject: |
Re: ld-output-def |
Date: |
Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:27:40 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.0.90 (gnu/linux) |
Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:
> According to Simon Josefsson on 4/1/2009 9:30 AM:
>>> Even though Posix says this should silently return non-zero exit status,
>>> some test implementations complain to stderr if the argument starts with
>>> something that looks like an operator or option. Hence, any time you are
>>> validating the contents of a variable that can be set outside of your
>>> control, you should always prefix it with x, to ensure that it doesn't
>>> start with -, (, ), etc.
>>
>> "test implementations"? If there aren't any more widely deployed
>> implementations out there that break (like irix, hpux or some other
>> system that we do support), IMO it makes the code harder to read for no
>> good reason and that we are better off making people stop use these test
>> implementations.
>
> test(1) is often a shell builtin.
Ah, sorry, I thought you meant experimental shell implementations.
> And we support a wide variety of shells, very many of which do not
> comply with POSIX. For example, Solaris /bin/sh. This portability
> pitfall is documented in the autoconf manual.
I've read it now, thanks for the pointer.
/Simon
- Re: ld-output-def, (continued)
- Re: ld-output-def, Simon Josefsson, 2009/04/01
- Re: ld-output-def, Eric Blake, 2009/04/01
- Re: ld-output-def, Simon Josefsson, 2009/04/01
- Re: ld-output-def, Eric Blake, 2009/04/01
- Re: ld-output-def, Simon Josefsson, 2009/04/01
- Re: ld-output-def, Eric Blake, 2009/04/01
- Re: ld-output-def, Simon Josefsson, 2009/04/01
- Re: ld-output-def, Eric Blake, 2009/04/01
- Re: ld-output-def,
Simon Josefsson <=
Re: ld-output-def, Simon Josefsson, 2009/04/01
Re: ld-output-def, Simon Josefsson, 2009/04/01
Re: ld-output-def, Simon Josefsson, 2009/04/01