Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
PATCH: POSIX exit codes (not quite Re: status codes on Dec OSF)
- X-seq: zsh-workers 15050
- From: "Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <zsh-workers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: PATCH: POSIX exit codes (not quite Re: status codes on Dec OSF)
- Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 03:49:18 +0000
- In-reply-to: <000601c0fae0$d819c640$21c9ca95@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <000601c0fae0$d819c640$21c9ca95@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Jun 22, 10:01am, Andrej Borsenkow wrote:
} Subject: RE: status codes on Dec OSF
}
} > >From the dec 4.0F machine
} > % /opt/bcs/packages/zsh-4.0.1/bin/zsh -x foo
} > +foo:1> FOO=+foo:1> jfkljfs
} > foo:1: command not found: jfkljfs
} > +foo:1> FOO=
} > +foo:2> echo 0
} > 0
}
}
} Sigh, this is a bug :-(
It's a bug on a particular operating system, and one which Sven was not
able to reproduce.
I'm made suspicious by "/opt/bcs/" in the command name. That smells of
"binary compatibility standard" to me -- which could mean that zsh was
not compiled for the operating system under which it is executing.
Apparently quoting from the POSIX standard, Andrej goes on:
} If there is a command name, execution will continue as described in Command
} Search and Execution . If there is no command name, but the command
} contained a command substitution, the command will complete with the exit
} status of the last command substitution performed. Otherwise, the command
} will complete with a zero exit status.
}
} If a command is not found, the exit status will be 127. If the command name
} is found, but it is not an executable utility, the exit status will be 126.
} Applications that invoke utilities without using the shell should use these
} exit status values to report similar errors.
Zsh already conforms to the first paragraph (or at least attempts to); the
patch below deals with the second paragraph. Sample output:
zagzig% foo=`stamp-h`
zsh: command not found: stamp-h
zagzig% echo $?
127
zagzig% foo=`./stamp-h`
zsh: permission denied: ./stamp-h
zagzig% echo $?
126
zagzig% echo foo=`./stamp-h`
zsh: permission denied: ./stamp-h
foo=
zagzig% echo $?
0
Is there any possibility that anyone is relying explicitly upon (($? == 1))
as was formerly the case for both command-not-found and permission-denied?
--- zsh-forge/current/Src/exec.c Wed Jun 20 08:57:01 2001
+++ zsh-4.0/Src/exec.c Fri Jun 22 20:04:31 2001
@@ -502,7 +502,7 @@
(arg0[0] == '.' && (arg0 + 1 == s ||
(arg0[1] == '.' && arg0 + 2 == s)))) {
zerr("%e: %s", arg0, errno);
- _exit(1);
+ _exit(errno == EACCES ? 126 : 127);
}
break;
}
@@ -556,7 +556,7 @@
zerr("%e: %s", arg0, eno);
else
zerr("command not found: %s", arg0, 0);
- _exit(1);
+ _exit(eno == EACCES ? 126 : 127);
}
#define RET_IF_COM(X) { if (iscom(X)) return docopy ? dupstring(X) : arg0; }
--
Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.brasslantern.com
Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author