Hi Paul, * Paul Eggert wrote on Mon, May 01, 2006 at 07:37:55PM CEST: > Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > +The [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4.8 shell > > Thanks, but the latest OpenBSD release is 3.9, so there's something > wrong here. Perhaps you meant "3.8"?
Yes, sorry about that. OpenBSD 3.8 is what I tested on. The followup to the upstream bug report suggests that it has not been fixed yet: http://cvs.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/query-pr-wrapper?full=yes&numbers=5093 > This reminds me of a longstanding related problem in BSD sh and make. > I installed this patch into Autoconf, which combines the two ideas. Thanks. Note however: > +Even relatively-recent versions of the @acronym{BSD} shell (e.g., > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3.4) wrongly exit with @option{-e} if a command within > [EMAIL PROTECTED]&&} fails inside a compound statement. For example: > + > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +#! /bin/sh > +set -e > +foo='nonempty' > +test -n "$foo" && exit 1 > +echo one > +if :; then > + test -n "$foo" && exit 1 > +fi > +echo two > [EMAIL PROTECTED] example > + > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +does not print @samp{two}. One workaround is to use @samp{if test -n > +"$foo"; then exit 1; fi} rather than @samp{test -n "$foo" && exit 1}. This example isn't right, in that it does not expose the problem, as the first command in the AND list should fail. Did you mean "test -z" instead of "test -n" (four instances), or "foo=''", and is there a reason to prefer it over the simpler "false"? Cheers, Ralf
